Marsiglio of Padua, a fairly controversial thinker from the Rennaissance argued from an Aristotelian framework for a weighted democratic form of government. While it is a similar conception to the American experiment, he was not really all that influential in the formation of this country. And I'm going to hijack from him an argument that has implications on the gay marriage debate. Of course, he claims to hijack the argument form Aristotle, so I'm just following in his own footsteps.


The controversial presupposition would be that "every whole, or at least every corporeal whole, is greater in mass and in virtue than any part of it taken separately." I think this flies.

Historically the parts of the state may be seen as increasing degrees of community: that is: marriage -> family -> clan or village -> City-state -> State

In this way marriage can be seen as a microcosmic part of the state.
If marriage is a microcosmic part of the state it is an essential element to the state's correct function.
Marriage in its unique relationship to the state, as a microcosmic part, must be protected by the state in order for the state to operate successfully.

I think that the current marriage debate is actually an effor to un-define marriage into a meaningless social contract, bereft of all true meaning. In effect, destroying marriage is breaking a leg off of the state's stool. I'm afraid that it only has three legs.