'The Bible tells me so' doesn't cut it in public [Gay marriage]

Capital Times ^ | 11-27-06 | Robert Weitzel

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think the argument can be convincing without insisting upon a reductio ad absurdam.

The state certainly has a secular interest in maintaining the continued existence of society. That does not mean "suppressing all unhealthy actions," but it does entail, for instance, the containment of epidemics, even by coercive measures (e.g. quarantine.)

It likewise does not require "mandating any and all health-improving actions," but it can encourage some public choices,and discourage others (e.g. a public school lunch program might decide "Chocolate milk yes, single-malt scotch, no.")

In the question of marriage, the state's only interest has nothing to do with securing personal gratification (there is no public orgasm program) but only in (in an admittedly partial and imperfect way) securing the continuance of society by stabilizing the one relation which can spontaneously result in the transmission of life to a new generation.