Marriage II: Enobarbus, I broke my vow (no pun intended) to avoid NRO during their over the top beg-a-thon to read Kurtz's latest argument for disallowing marriages to gays. He reasons that gays will not take seriously their vows.

Indeed, a substantial number of gay couples openly reject such expectations and declare that their interest in marriage is confined to its economic and legal benefits.

Oh right, and gays don't want marriages, they want weddings. Isn't that what we used to hear. In fact, they may be openly hostile to the values a "good" marriage is based on. Kurtz continues:

More than this, many homosexuals look to same-sex marriage as an opportunity to intentionally subvert the ethic of sexual fidelity and ethos of sexual complementarity that they consider keys to the "oppressiveness" of marriage itself.

As you already pointed out, heterosexual couples can be just as cavalier in their faithfullness, yet the presumption at every new couples' nuptials is that their marriage will last. It's this confidence (or optimism) that makes marriage still meaningful to members of a generation that has seen this and other institutions shredded by those before us. Bad marriages will always do some harm to the institution and good marriages will continue to lift it up, no matter the sexual orientation. I'm in favor of giving the same optimistic support to gays as I would to any straight couple. Kurtz is not.