In light of today's events, I came across an excellent interview he did last week with USA Today. In this interview, +Cordileone does an excellent job of articulating the best arguments in favor of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. He does so with surprisingly few references to the religious arguments in favor of traditional marriage and instead focuses on some of the more pragmatic issues.
The whole thing is worth a read, but here are some snippets:
To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant, and that marriage is essentially an institution about adults, not children; marriage would mean nothing more than giving adults recognition and benefits in their most significant relationship.
. . .
So there are really two different ideas of marriage being debated in our society right now, and they cannot coexist: Marriage is either a conjugal union of a man and a woman designed to unite husband and wife to each other and to any children who may come from their union, or it is a relationship for the mutual benefit of adults which the state recognizes and to which it grants certain benefits. Whoever is for one, is opposed to the other.
. . .
Notice how there is no controversy in this country now over the evil of Jim Crow laws. Shortly after the Civil Rights Act the cultural change was complete. This is because it was the right thing to do. The truth cannot be suppressed indefinitely.
Draw a contrast here with the pro-life movement: After the Roe decision, it was commonly thought that our society would soon easily accept the legitimacy of abortion. But what has happened? The pro-life movement is stronger now, 40 years later, than it ever has been. This is because of the truth: Abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. That is not a matter of opinion or religious belief; it is a simple fact that cannot be denied.
The same principle applies with marriage: It is simply a natural fact that you need a man and a woman to make a marriage and that a child's heart longs for the love of both his or her mother and father. Even if the Supreme Court rules against this truth, the controversy will not die out, as it hasn't on the abortion issue.That first point is one that I always want to make - since when did marriage become a state-sponsored valentine? The only reason that the state is involved in marriage to begin with is for self-preservation: marriage is the one institution that can produce new members of society. If that is taken out of the equation, the state is left regulating people's sex lives. How can that be justified?