"... marriage is an institution which is assigned to bring a man and a woman together to raise a child, and that the ideal setting for society at large is when there is a male and female associated with the development and nurturing of a child."

OK, what about all of us hetero couples who don't have any children??!! These statements invalidate us, too. Mitt Romney is an ass.

Should we not be allowed to marry, since we can't sire any children? And how about women who've had their tubes tied? Or people who are infertile for any other reason?

The "marriage is for raising children" argument is a red herring. Yes, most marriages lead to offspring, but many don't, and many gay relationships lead to children, just as many heterosexual marriages lead to adopted children.

...Is getting to read idiotic statements issued by both Republicans and Democrats on a seemingly daily basis telling us that we are not worthy of participating in this democracy in a equal manner. It must be just so horrible and degrading for them to take my tax dollars. It must make them feel so DIRTY!

Is to not have Mitt Romney as President.

And is he also saying that elderly folks and widows/widowers who will not be having children should also be denied the right to get married?

Mr. Romney's statement, ""My view is that marriage is primarily an institution for the development and nurturing of children," also invalidates married couples that choose not to have children.

Okay, you know what? I'm sick of talking about abstract concepts and how I feel emotionally when someone like Romney "invalidates" my family. Let me tell you why this way-out-there, radical concept of same-sex marriage matters to me even though I'm sure my Democratic political "allies" would love for me and my ilk to shut up about it, lest it cost "us" the next election:

My partner and I are in the course of doing a second-parent adoption so that we will both have equal rights and responsibilities for the child that my partner adopted 2 years ago from Guatemala (we couldn't adopt as a couple, of course, since we're lesbians, but since that's about the Guatemalan government and not the US, I'll save that gripe for a different day). So, I need at least a $1M life insurance policy, a will and a series of arrangements that will ensure that, if something happens to me, as much of that $1M as possible will go towards the care of my child. $1M is really not all that much when you're talking about 20-25 years.

So, we go out to lunch with this insurance broker who has worked with my partner for years. Democrat, progressive, hangs with all the people I like, etc. etc. And for a non-lawyer, he's incredibly knowledgeable about insurance law, tax law, trusts and estates, and he gives me a number of good reasons why I should not make our child the direct beneficiary, why creating trusts can get really complicated, yada yada. Then he starts telling me about how I can avoid the "death tax" as long as my estate goes directly to my "spouse."

And I'm, like, "Excuse me? You've had a gay client for how many years now, and you've never heard about the Defense of Marriage Act? The thing that tells the federal government it can only define the terms 'spouse' and 'marriage' as a heterosexual marriage between a man and woman? Been around since 1998?" Nope, never heard of such a thing. So now this guy's completely stumped and has to start designing his financial model for us all over again. We've had similar moments with our financial advisor. They're more than happy to work with gay clients, celebrate our "commitment" and take our money, but the only people we work with whom we know are going to have all the answers are the gay attorneys we go to who practice family law.

WTF? You progressive "gay-friendly," "tolerant" Democrat types are still really this in the dark about how the government is screwing us every day? You think this is all just about bridal gowns and overpriced cake, and "oh, look how hip I am, I'm going to a gay wedding?"

Please, if one of you ever has the pleasure of discussing this issue with Mr. Romney directly (or for that matter, any of the Democratic frontrunners, who basically adhere to the same position), would you please ask him if he would be willing to pay my child $60,000 out of his own damn pocket in the event of my untimely death, since that's the amount she will get screwed out of by the government in taxes due to my inability to confer my estate to a "spouse." Since, after all, his primary concern in protecting the institution of marriage is to "protect the children."

"It's not intended to do anything other than to recognize that that is the best setting we know of since the beginning of recorded history for developing and nurturing the children of the next generation."

Marriage is not a gold star that the state gives out when a man and woman conceive a child as recognition of their success at creating "the best setting we know of since the beginning of recorded history for developing and nurturing the children of the next generation". It's a complex civil contract that confers specific rights and responsibilities to the couple that enters into it. Marriage laws are, as far as I can tell, blind to said couple's ability or fitness as parents. Mr. Romney's statement is, to be blunt, horseshit.

Mitt Romney has spoken out of his ass again!

Gays can't enter into marriage, but they can certainly enter into "contracts" vis-à-vis property ownership, child care, and some of those 1,000-odd rights, privileges and responsibilities automatically conferred onto a married couple. At astronomical legal costs.

Why, then, are childless straight couples allowed to call their "contract" marriage? Doesn't seem fair. Why doesn't Romney call for some kind of time span for a married couple to produce or adopt a child, after which it's forcibly annulled? And we're talking about YOU, Bob and Liddy Dole!