It appears that what this gentleman is endorsing here is the proposition that marriage should only be allowed where the couple intends to, and can, procreate, where they will be good parents, and where they will never get divorced.
I must say that if this were the law in any jurisdiction in the U.S. that the people who fear gay marriage in that jurisdiction would have nothing to fear. If marriage were based purely upon the ability to have children and the requirement that a child have a married mom and a married dad, then gay marriage proponents would have no ground to stand upon. Unfortunately for the Harvard educated author (Harvard must be so proud), he himself goes through a litany of legal practices that really destroy his ideal of marriage (divorce, adultery), plus he does not even add or mention
- marriages by infertile couples
- marriages by people who do not want kids
- late life marriages
- marriages in the mountain west where 3-4-5 heterosexual people will, in fact, agree to stay married and want a lot of kids.
Therefore, the world in which this football player lives, where we issue a parenting license and an irrevocable marriage license and honor all relationships between heterosexuals willing to raise kids, does not even remotely exist. The fact that he may wish to return to the days when the option of divorce was not recognized (at least for the woman) and homosexuality, adultery and having a child out of wedlock were all crimes, is, I guess, awesome for him. His kids can hope to live in such a world some day (rather than some horrible world like New York or Massachusetts or Hawaii where gays get married...ewwwwwwwwwww).
I too used to be a strong believer in anti-gay treatment. I enjoyed the Bowers v. Hardwick decision which stated that our forefathers did not starve and die at Valley Forge so a guy could do another guy from behind. But as the last 26 years have gone by, I have slowly determined that I was on the wrong side of the equation. When a 7-2 Supreme Court says that our forefathers did, in fact, intend that the government couldn't make it a crime to have consensual sex with any adult partner you choose, and so many states make it a crime to discriminate against gay people in employment and housing, and the Supreme Court specifically found that Colorado had no right to exclude gay people from future favorable legislation, exactly how do we come down to the decision that "Well, but we can keep gay people from getting married"? It smacks of the same logic as the argument that "Well, flag burning is different...." You can burn a picture of the President, or of the Constitution, or of the Declaration of Independence or of the Emancipation Proclamation, but you cannot burn a flag. Bullshit. You can burn a flag. And the fact that some people really hate it doesn't make it any less of a right (in fact, it might make it even more of a right).
Anyway, I am all for good solid arguments and listening to the other side's view of the world. But if this is really the best that a Harvard grad has to offer..........I guess I should stop there, the author gets upset when people call him names.