The “great drama of gay rights”

Douglas Farrow, a professor of Christian Thought at McGill, states in today’s Gazette that marriage “is about children and what’s best for children.” He continues: “the hidden premise of so-called gay marriages… is that children are a secondary issue at best.” (my italics)
I have already submitted my letter to the editor, but there’s plenty of rant to go around.
If marriage is about children, what happens to childless heterosexual couples in Farrow’s world? Do their marriages automatically dissolve after a prescribed amount of time without offspring? Despite Farrow’s definition of marriage, hetero couples do get married for reasons beyond procreation; in fact, many straight couples deliberately opt out of parenthood. There are also plenty of frustrated couples who cannot, for one reason or another, have children – does Farrow propose to compound their unhappiness by telling them they shouldn’t be married?
As for gay marriages and children, it seems to me that gay parents have a better motivation to marry for the sake of their children. Children of straight couples are related biologically to their parents, and therefore require no legal definition of parenthood, family or marriage to protect their interests. Children of gay parents, on the other hand, cannot be biologically related to both parents. What happens if disaster strikes – the biological parent dies or disappears, leaving the other, nonbiological parent with potentially horrible legal battles to maintain the relationship with the child.
I’m not sure what Farrow believes is the “hidden premise” of gay marriage – apparently it’s hidden from him as well – but surely there are plenty of gay couples who’s prime incentive for marriage is to provide a safe, stable, socially recognized family unit for their children.
It’s disappointing to read statements like these from a professor of Christian Thought. One would hope that some one with that level of education, not to mention “Christianity,” would (a) be more tolerant and accepting, and (b) at least be able to present a rational argument, rather than resorting to the language of intolerance. For instance, he makes sarcastic comments about the intellectual capacity of Martin Cauchon, to whom her refers as our “minister of justification.” A few more examples from Farrow’s article:
– “the word ‘fishers’ [was created] so as not to offend that largely fictional character, the lady fisherman”
– “the grand farce that is being played out in place of a marriage debate”
– “the great drama of gay rights”
– “the innocuous-sounding Act Respecting Marriage”
I have said before that the debate on marriage, gay or straight, should be considered outside the realm of religion. Churches, sects, congregations, and so on should have the right to choose not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. But they should stay out of the legal debate – that’s what the separation of Church and State is all about.