Preserve what for whom? The Senate, in a bit stronger effort than was anticipated, struck down the proposed Constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages. Only 48 voted to keep it alive (and as noted, this was a procedural vote, not a vote to enact it), which was 12 short of what was needed to keep it alive.

Two dueling quotes:

"It's not about how to protect the sanctity of marriage," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "It's about politics -- an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage.

"No one wants to discriminate against gays," responded Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). "Simply put, we want to preserve traditional marriage."

Well, politically speaking, I'm not sure what advantage any politican gets over another through the passage of the amendment. I mean, you can certainly say that heteros get the advantage of marriage over homos, but beyond that, me no unnerstand.

As for Hatch, and as my lede indicates, what are we exactly preserving? An over-50% failure rate? Britney Spears and her right to marry for 36 hours? More alimony for Elizabeth Taylor's boys? Yes, there are some extreme examples here, but marriage is between two people. Beyond that, what universal truth are we upholding here?