On the question whether same-sex couples should be granted access to civil marriage

Thanks again to Rob Vischer for his thoughtful response to my post.

Now, in response to Rick, some hasty thoughts:

Rob raised some questions—important questions, in my view--about the argument, and then concluded with this:  “Does SSM represent changes to marriage beyond the gender of the participants, and if it does, are the changes likely to impede the essential social functions of marriage?  In my estimation, that's the crux of the argument that needs to be engaged by both opponents and proponents of SSM.”

1

I don't know whether "SSM represent[s] changes to marriage beyond the gender of the participants …”  It may.  What change of changes?  Perhaps, inter alia, this:  marriage as a less patriarchal--less sexist--institution.  ("The husband is 'the head' of the family; wives, submit to your husbands.")  Whatever the answer, marriage has long been an evolving social institution.  Happily so:  Many women who are married today—and many men, too--understandably would not be interested in being part of the institution of marriage as it existed hundreds of years ago.

2

“[A]re the changes likely to impede the essential social functions of marriage?”

What are "the essential social functions of marriage"?  Was there a consensus about the precise contents of the then-set of “essential social functions of [civil] marriage” before access to civil divorce became the norm? Did granting access to civil divorce impede some—one or more—of those functions?  Which one(s)?  (Did it change some of those functions?  Some for the better?)  If so, was granting access to civil divorce, all things considered, a mistake?  Is there a consensus about the precise contents of the now-set of “essential social functions of [civil] marriage”?  Would granting access to civil marriage to same-sex couples impede one or more of those functions?  Which one(s)?  (Would it change some of them?  Some for the better?)  If so, would granting such access, all things considered, be a mistake?

3

Will anyone not already strongly opposed to granting access to civil marriage to same-sex couples think that the argument Rob sketched (but did not affirm) is a good reason to oppose granting such access?  In particular, will anyone who does not believe that same-sex sexual conduct is immoral think that the argument Rob sketched is a good reason to oppose granting access to civil marriage to same-sex couples?  Who but one who believes that same-sex sexual conduct is immoral will think it is  legitimate, that it is just, to deny access to civil marriage to the same-sex couples who intend for their unions to be lifelong, monogamous unions of faithful love, because there are other same-sex couples who do not so intend?

South Carolina Governor Sanford’s wife tells us that the governor refused to take a vow of fidelity when they got married (but that she married him anyway).  Should couples be denied access to civil marriage unless both members are willing to take a vow of fidelity?

4

Is the argument Rob sketched a good reason for refusing to create “civil unions” for same-sex couples—civil unions that are not called “marriages”?