On his blog “Father Talks Too Fast”, Fr. Faulkner addresses the question of same-sex “marriage” in an engaging and creative way [sorry...I've been alerted that Fr. Faulkner's post was removed in obedience to his bishop. Update: Fr. Faulkner has assured me that the excerpt I have quoted is not erroneous or under question in any way by his bishop.]. I’ve heard parts of the argument put this way before, but not as clearly as Fr. Faulkner presents it. I highly recommend reading the whole article; it makes you think!
Here’s an excerpt (my emphases throughout):
This is the most common, and, I think, a pretty darn compelling argument for states enshrining faithful, permanent, childbearing marriage in a protected (and exclusive) status. Religious and non-religious alike have argued it for years. [A recent, much-crisper version of this argument from an economist's point of view comes from Adam Kolasinski at MIT.] The argument it reasonable, does not rest on bigotry, nor on religiously-revealed truths, nor does it address anything other than civil marriage.
And up until about two years ago, I thought it answered the question, and was exactly what the one man-one woman camp needed to use to get over the accusation of trying to make this an imposition of religious moral views.
But while I still believe the above argument is utterly valid in theory, I don't think it remotely works in America in 2012. It may have been valid in 1950, but not now. The reason is simple: America is not a country dedicated to preserving marriages or forming children within those families. Given that abortion and no-fault divorce are enshrined rights, and that contraception and sterilization are the sine qua non of the "modern family", it's ridiculous to say that civil marriage exists for the procreation, formation, and welfare of children, or that the U.S. values the family as the firm bedrock on which our society rests.
"By giving benediction in 1930 to its married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell her other members—married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual—not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals."