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