Andrew: At the time, I think I probably WOULD have opposed it. In

retrospect, I think the change satisfies my two criteria (strong arguments

in favor–large sections of the population are irreligious; slight

possibility of damage–marriage still a strongly formal procedure buttressed

by law). But you can never be too careful.

Your other point seems to be that the stunning levels of promiscuity among

male homosexuals (reported in absolutely every study), and the “openness”

(to sex adventures with other partners) of even quite solid and long-term

male homosexual relationships are caused by the absence of social, or legal,

sanction for homosexual unions. You imply that if homosexual unions were to

be treated just like marriages, male homosexual behavior in regard to

commitment and fidelity would trend to the heterosexual norm. I can’t claim

to be an expert in this field, but from my own readings, that theory–if I

have understood you correctly–seems highly improbable. For a quick look at

one researcher’s findings on the attitudes of male homosexuals in this zone,

try Chapters 4 and 5 of Michael Bailey’s book , which I review in the current

NRODT. For all the obloquy heaped on Michael’s head by “transgender”

extremists, I think his findings here–on, for instance, the low level of

sexual jealousy among male homosexuals–are mainstream and uncontroversial.