Andrew: I think, if you don’t mind my saying so, that that is a very

cavalier attitude towards a core institution of our society. The social

sanctioning of homosexual unions is a tremendous step into the unknown. No

society that I know of has ever done it. As a conservative, I am inclined

to think that there is probably some good reason for that, and that we

should not make such a great change in our social arrangements unless there

are strong arguments for doing so, and the probability of damage slight.

Inequities in the estate tax do not strike me as a suffiently strong

argument; and the further trivialization of marriage seems to me a very

damaging probable consequence, one that we can ill afford. I can quite see

that a lot of people would disagree with my point of view; but why would a

conservative disagree with it? So far as “some presumed heterosexual

standard” is concerned: why, yes, there is such a standard, and there is

nothing “presumed” about it. You will find it in the Book of Common Prayer

under the heading: “The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony.” It is true

that large numbers of us fail to attain that standard. I just think that

that is a bad thing, and that measures likely to increase those numbers

ought to be resisted.