A quick note to the editors at National Review: no one argues that you have to marry to have children or have children to be married. Unless, of course, you're gay. Only then does the ability to have children—or to "mate" like you're gonna have children (even if you're infertile or way the hell past your childbearing years or using birth control or fucking the opposite-spouse in the ass)—become the sole defining characteristic of marriage.

Sorry, NR bigots, but your case for discriminating against "childless" same-sex couples—when some of us, ahem, are out there raising children—is transparently bigoted horseshit sprinkled with double-standard jimmies. Until you start advocating for the denial of marriage licenses to the elderly, fertility tests for the young, and the nullification of the legal marriages of straight couples who are childless-by-choice, no one should take you seriously when you argue that children define marriage because it's clear that you don't believe that either. Otherwise you would promote a "seamless garment," if I may borrow a phrase, where marriage is concerned, i.e. no marriage licenses for oldies, inferties, vasectomies, etc.

Sullivan and Rauch take their swings.