Ryan T. Anderson writes for the Heritage Foundation:
If the sexual habits of the past 50 years have been good for society, good for women, good for children, then by all means it’s reasonable to enshrine the consent-based view of marriage in law. But, if the past 50 years have not been so good for society, for women, for children, indeed, if they have been, for many people, a disaster, why would we lock in a view of marriage that will make it more difficult to recover a more humane vision of human sexuality and family life?
The law cannot be neutral between the consent-based and conjugal views of marriage. It will enshrine one view or the other. It will either teach marriage as consenting adult love of whatever size or shape the adults choose, or it will teach marriage as a comprehensive union of sexually complementary spouses who live by the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency, so children can be raised by their mom and dad.
There is no third option. There is no neutral position. The law will embrace one or the other.
Hit the link for the preceding thousand words of bullshittery and gobbledygook. The piece is from his forthcoming book and was posted on the fourth anniversary of Obergefell.