Nathaniel Frank's piece revealed a compressed view of same-sex marriage. Nowhere did it mention children — conveniently dismissed, it seems, as if marriage is simply a celebration of individual rights and public recognition.
Through the centuries, in vastly different cultures all over the world, marriage has been a religious and social institution because it is the single greatest unifier of men, women and children. It is self-evident that marriage is much more than Frank's idea of "sharing in the symbolic space of first-class citizenship." This reduces marriage to something akin to membership in an exclusive country club.
Marriage has historically enabled the entire concept of family and society to flourish. And that, of course, includes children.
So while Frank may believe same-sex marriage is about rights, benefits and recognition, those are secondary considerations. Perhaps he should consider marriage as something selfless, something based on giving, not just getting.