The movement to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is not as homogeneous as it would like to appear.
Bruce Hausknecht at CitizenLink points out how Stanford University Law Professor Ralph Banks argues in the New York Times for incestuous and polygamous marriages using the same logic now employed to legalize same-sex marriage:
The very existence of the NYT opinion piece [by Prof. Banks] may rile gay activists, however, whose major (and patently defective) talking point thus far in criticizing Prop 8 and other marriage amendments is that they “single out” gays for discrimination. For the public relations game behind same-sex marriage to succeed, the ad nauseum accusations of “hater” and “bigot” and “homophobe” require there to be a single “victim” group – homosexuals – not whole groups of differently situated marriage-seekers. Once people understand that polygamy, and incestuous, polyamorous (group marriage) and under-age relationships, among others, are also excluded by a traditional marriage legal scheme, the gay victimhood public relations effort will unravel.
The state’s recognition and regulation of marriage is not about rewarding every adult desire for any relationship under the sun, it’s about preserving an institution that for millennia has proven to be the best foundation for a society to continue to thrive.