Virginian Matthew Mehan has this response to John O’Sullivan’s piece on the future of marriage to throw into the mix:

Considering the despondency of this article’s tone, may I make a suggestion? I agree with your cultural weather report, 100% chance of rain here and sunny skies in Sodom, however, that does not mean that some rear guard actions–no pun was intended until now–should be left undone. For instance, call them gay unions not gay marriages. At least allow for some culturally recognized distinction between sterile coitus and a life-producing family even if both are legally sanctioned side by side. Besides that, marriage comes from the Latin “marita” which means a woman provided with a husband. A verbal distinction can be a powerful one to sow seeds for later campaigns in the culture war. Also, by privatizing marriage you divorce marriage from the interests of the state, and Jefferson was very emphatic, as with all our founders, that a state that does not support the family and see its protection as a tantamount goal is not a state worth protecting. If you privatize, or if politicians and just citizens roll over and take a coward’s comfort in knowing that their religious institutions will soon be forced to disengage from the public sphere, you agree to let the state consider the family as simply another competing interest on par with the NAMBLA and the Teamsters Union. Please keep fighting on this front. I would hate to see the conservative movement win every battle but the war.