We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
"Not, in particular, men to men or women to women."
Why not? If there is a divorce does not a man or woman leaving get some percentage of all the assets owned by both the men and the women in the marriage? Marriage in the legal sense, is not about what goes on in the bedroom. It is a legal contractual structure to share assets, infer power of attorney, etc.
Legitimacy of offspring is no longer an issue since a paternity test can give the offspring rights to the estate or claim on earnings for support.
This is obviously some bullpen warm-up for the next big social-issue push by liberals. Now that they've got gay marriage and legal dope, they're running out of new "fundamental human rights" to discover. Polygamy is the obvious next step because it lets them play the "Islamophobia" card on opponents -- and lets them appeal to overweight neopagans.
This is a natural progression of social change. Nothing that the good Professor speaks to is new or even unique - it's been part of the whole civil marriage concept for many years.
Science fiction, often a predictor of what societies will look like, has pretty much detailed this process. None other than Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in A Strange Land" and "Methuselah Children" (or the "Chronicles of Lazarus Long" for that matter), posited this concept of group marriage in which everybody is married to everybody and the distinction of gender oriented sex as being outmoded and antique. Even if you aren't a scifi fan, I would encourage everybody to read "Stranger...." if you are interested in the concept.
This is not a moral choice - it is a social choice. And as our society moves from one of personal freedom in all things to personal freedom in some things, it is only natural for humans to attempt to express their desire for freedom in this manner - or to put it another way, the concept of "I'll marry whoever or what ever I want, when I want and how I want" is a reaction to restrictions on personal freedoms in other areas - forced choices of health care, constant surveillance by government agencies, unwelcome and pervasive "policies" that are meant to help but are really forced changes in social matters that suit only the many and not the few.
This is a logical development of Griswold v. Connecticut and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. There is no longer any constitutional basis for laws prohibiting polygamy, incest or prostitution. One can hope that bestiality and pedophilia will remain proscribed, but NAMBLA might win on pedophilia.
The push for same sex marriage has never been about providing a way for the tiny minority of the tiny minority of homosexuals who desire to establish stable long-term relationships. It's about eliminating the family-forming institution that stands in the way of a powerful welfare state.
The left has been attacking the institution of marriage for decades: no-fault divorce, de-regulation of sexual behavior, redefinition of what a family is, encouraging women to have children out of wedlock, creating "alternative lifestyles" and promoting them through television, movies, other media, painting marriage as exploitive patriarchy, and now genderless marriage. Beyondmarriage.org documents where the left is going: legal recognition of almost any relationship among any number of people, for the purpose of obtaining economic benefits. When everything is a marriage, nothing is a marriage, and the institution will disappear.