In reply to the recent letter about marriage: slopes can slip in more than one direction. For instance, if the state was able to cite "traditional restrictions" and ban equal marriage, what would prevent it from also banning other groups of people "traditionally" denied the right to marry?
Not long ago the mentally ill and those with STDs were denied marriage. If LGBT are not permitted to marry on grounds of "tradition," then what stops the state from also denying these rights to other groups on grounds of tradition as well?
If you really wish to defend the "tradition" of marriage and reject LGBTs from marrying, do you not run the risk of bringing about these other restrictions as well? The notion of your cliff analogy is manifestly ridiculous. Equal marriage is a legal and moral issue distinct from these others, and it is as best disingenuous to argue that its legalization will force the government to recognize the sanctity of a human bond with an animal or a child.