Is there a requirement that one attend the same high school as one’s “high school sweetheart”? Can I get an analytical philosopher’s ruling on this, please?

In all seriousness, I think one of the more interesting consequences of the demand for social and legal recognition of same-sex unions is the way it has thrown the coventional rhetoric of marriage employed by conservatives into sharp relief, thus forcing a good deal of re-evaluation. The overwhelming majority of social conservatives in the U.S., in my experience, have long been just as susceptible as anyone else to the expressive, “pursuit of happiness” vision of marriage (which is why so often their arguments and research has been framed along “faithful married couples are happier/healthier/live longer/etc.”-type lines). Now, slowly, here and there, you’re beginning to see conservatives realize that this framing prevents them from adequately defending their moral or religious convictions. And as a result, more and more utterly ordinary American evangelicals and others are beginning to talk like Burkeans, or orthodox Catholic students of the natural law—i.e., marriage is primarily about society and children, “love” is only a secondary component, etc. Which is not an entirely bad consequence, I think.

>Now, slowly, here and there, you’re beginning to see conservatives realize that this framing prevents them from adequately defending their moral or religious convictions.

More to the point, it is making them realize that it inhibits them from imposing their moral or religious convictions on others.

Not necessarily Raj. Granted, the consensus moral orthodoxy which social conservatives held to throughout the 20th century was a lot easier to defend and implement when they could casually assume that it was simple common sense, that those who deviated couldn’t ever be happy, that alternative, “ungodly” lifestyles were wretched, etc. But I wouldn’t say that the complication, in the minds of many conservatives, of the simplistic supposed equivalence between traditional Christian morality and personal fulfillment is necessarily going to undermine their efforts to see their views reflected in law. Indeed, by getting rid of bad arguments, it may be that it’ll make them even more effective (if not necessarily more successful) at articulating their claims.

KME: No.

“The pursuit of happiness” is in the Declaration of Independence, and as such has no legal standing. Same with “of the people, by hte people, and for the people”, from the Gettysburg Address.

However, the pursuit of happiness is part of the California state constitution, so the pursuit of happiness can be a legal precedent there. Probably that’s why Californians dress the way they do and screw so much.