You're ignoring the subversion of our language which is what the article is really all about.

Thank you "Flubber my lip...hhahah, got a chuckle out of me.
Language confounded, goes all the way back to Babylon and it was initiated by the Rulers...not the apologist version. However...it's really taken on a real subversive effect upon us, disempowering some severely so we can't, not only be rational and objective, but makes it harder for more than half of society to ascend into conscious disciplined thought and behavior.

That's what I call...tipping the paradigm upside down...now we scarcely know which way is up.

Well, in the first place, this article is not all about same sex marriage...it's about how progressives, liberals and radical groups twist our language to get what they want and avoiding the important conversations society needs to have.

And That falls right into being Objective because they have made it so we can't be...

Potatoes- used not as proof but as an example.

Our culture (still) values free speech, the right to own property, and the individual v. the herd.
All the institutions of our culture are under attack by what are called the progressives. They found they could not destroy some, eg. marriage and the universities, so they attack in a different way by distortion.
Government welfare depts recognize polygamous liaisons as marriage so payments are made. We see claims that mothers, daughters, fathers and sons can marry tho' so far only in groups of two; but there has been at least one instance of a so-called marriage of a person with themselves.

To recognize individual rights means accepting any freely chosen relation between consenting adults as ok for them. That right does not extend to claiming relationship A is the same as and equal to relationship Not A.
So Grandma Bruce wants to marry her/his adult grandchildren siblings Brenda and Bert, well let them do what they want, but give it a suitable name, the word marriage has already been taken for something else.

Equality is not the aim, what they want is to change the language we use to destroy its usefulness in communication.
(See 1984 as well as Atlas Shrugged).

“Society” doesn’t recognize anything, individuals do. And the issues here are clearly individual rights and equal treatment under the law, not the alleged “rights” of “society”. Most of the legal privileges and protections conferred by marriage have nothing to do with anyone’s chromosomes or fantasies. Again, If states had been willing to provide an equivalent path to such protections, even under a name other than “marriage,” the issue likely would not have reached the Supreme Court; and if it had, the Court would likely have ruled differently.

First, one must understand that marriage has many laws attached to it covering taxation, inheritance, visitation rights and others depending on the state in which one resides.That is the only reason for the desire to make same sex marriage viable. Marriage, biblically speaking, is strictly between a man and a woman. Why? Mainly to lock in procreation. But in the pursuit of happiness, if same sex marriage makes you happy, then why not? I cannot see where it causes any form of coercion to others, and procreation will take place no matter what. In biblical times, when societies were divided into tribes and clans, procreation was vital. The more people you had, the more powerful you became, which was the main reason that homosexuality was frowned upon and made to be a sin. In many clans, having a child, particularly a boy, was a reason for celebration because he was a potential http://warrior.So to this day, humanity maintains the traditions of primitives. "Lord, what fools these mortals be." If humanity wants to maintain the traditions of marriage, then it would be rational to get rid of the laws pertaining to marriage and continue to treat all people as individuals.

I like your title. The cited article is a decent example of that gibberish. Well, flubber my lip!
Such has rendered clear communication virtually impossible. e.g. what do "liberal" and "conservative" mean anymore? Language has become so muddy!
"Marriage" would have religious roots. Those came to have effects on tax "laws" which give some edge to the married. That likely has triggered this nonsense we might call a "sexual revolution" today.
Individuality is lost when our Rulers decree. Why does mankind fall for that?

Wow... Ayn said Fair meaning unfair, and Progress meaning regression... so because she said that, it follows that Marriage equality (which she didn't speak about) is destroying marriage? And using the potato board as proof?

So if A=A, and B=B, then X must equal Y, because D=D...

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. What would Plato say??

The fact that Hammurabi had to write laws about such abuses, suggests that it predated Babylon.

The same sex issue is one of recognizing someone's fantasies, as if they were real. If a man wants to pretend that he's a woman, in spite of the fact that he has a y chromosome, let him knock himself out. But his attempt to twist the law to recognize that fantasy, in the name of "fairness" is nothing more than an attempt to coerce the entire society into recognizing a fantasy as reality. When you're talking about law, you're talking coercion. The same goes for any other type of sexual fantasy.

Why do we keep bringing up "same sex marriage" on this board? There's something mighty suspicious about how often that (and other non-mainstream topics that have nothing to do with Objectivism) crop up here...

Ever actually look up how many people's lives were ruined because they had 2 sme sex parents? Not the made up socialist claptrap, but actual facts? Or better, how many straight couples got divorced, killed their spouses, etc, because of who some absolute stranger falls in love with and marries?

I tend to look at rational fact over what someone tells me I should believe. Especially when it has to do with other people's private lives.

Originally, yes, the legal and financial was the issue but as I stated, they pushed it too far...It harms children and society as a whole, by example.
I agree with your last sentence...laughing...that's when things go sour...

The issue was financial and legal. States were denying same-sex couples “the same financial, legal and inter-personal protections” as married heterosexual couples on grounds that had nothing to do with children.

Quantum entanglement exists between many entities, biological or otherwise, that are related in some way. It cannot be properly employed to derive a moral code that bestows special privileges on persons recognized by the state to be in certain types of relationships.

And if marriage is “only for procreation”, I guess it should be illegal for couples over 50 years old to get married.

The issue was not the financial or legal...but the effects upon children. They pushed it too far...marriage, from the dawn of time, so to speak, was only for procreation...and rightfully so. We all know, bad or good...children need both a male father and a female mother...

I think I have discovered that there might be a quantum entanglement, right from inception between mothers and fathers with their children.
If that turns out to be accurate, it definitely proves our point.

Thanks for that response and example. Wow...all that subversion over potatoes...this crap never stops...been going on since Babylon.

The author herself is an expert in using cloudy and ambiguous language, as in this howler:

“The same-sex marriage debate is yet one more example of the conflict between, on the one hand, individuals' rights to autonomy and choice, and, on the other, the good of society, both present and future.” Well, that’s certainly clear enough!

In another article, however, she does correctly identify the underlying issue at the heart of the marriage debate:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articl...

“And committed same-sex couples have the right to the same financial, legal and inter-personal protections as do committed opposite-sex couples.”

This is what numerous state and local laws refused to grant to same-sex couples, in the name of religious or cultural values or, as above, the “good of society”. If states had been willing to provide an equivalent path to such protections, even under a name other than “marriage,” the issue likely would not have reached the Supreme Court; and if it had, the Court would likely have ruled differently.

Cloudy and ambiguous language-
used to obscure for a political purpose when the real meaning would be unacceptable.
So, this kind of talk is unethical as it is intended to mislead.

When I read AS for the first time I was impressed by Rand's skill at describing how this worked-
words such as fair and progress are used to cover up the intention which is the reverse of the emotional feel you get at first reading.
Fair means unfair to favor some group.
Progress means regression.
Likewise marriage equality means destroying the concept of marriage and the benefits it brings in order to create social and economic chaos and get people into communes.

While on this I will mention a law that my state has on the books-
The Potato Marketing Board, you might think the government wants to help sell potatoes, wrong.
The Board has the job of setting prices, of restricting production by defining varieties as well as quantities, and police have the power to stop vehicles carrying more than (about) 40 lb of potatoes. The real purpose of course is to protect existing growers and stop newcomers. (Orren Boyle!).
Some good news- the police have not used that power to set-up road blocks for potato searches, and that law is to be rescinded.