"

Your agreeing with Mr. Lutz does not make his opinion significant, and the other folks you cite you don't have support for the range of claims you're making for them; you show two individuals commenting on same-sex marriage and none for the other things you're claiming as ""non-traditional"" marriage (oddly including polygamy, which has a long and broad tradition), much less showing that the reason for opposition matches Lutz. It also creates a very odd focus in the article, as there is very little on ""conservative"" versus ""liberal"" views (most of the invocations of the words ""conservative"" and ""liberal"" in the article are reflecting religious rather than political status), and to suddenly focus on supposed ""liberal objections"" in a realm where support appears more likely to come from liberals with conservatives largely objecting seems like spin. I'm removing this section, as it has been removed repeatedly by several editors making it clear that you don't have consensus; please achieve consensus in Talk before reinserting it.   "