We have argued for a long time that the logic of egalitarianism when applied to marriage leads inexorably to it being stripped of special status entirely. The Village magazine agrees. It doesn’t think marriage should have special status.

For sure, it believes that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but it believes no special privileges should attach to marriage because that would treat other family types less equally.

As it says in its leader in the June-July issue of the magazine: “A right is something that everyone can avail of. Marriage is something that only people who are linked through love can avail of.

“Apart from the fact that it, patriachically and Thomistically, a relationship based on a woman’s utility as a child-bear, marriage discriminates in favour of the fortunate (those lucky enough to be linked through love), including through tax advantages.

“Egalitarians would favour institutions that promote the less fortunate, not institutions designed to promote iniquity. A radical and egalitarian agenda is to undermine state support – including financial support – for, marriage, not to extend the number who can benefit from the unfair privilege.

“Children are a separate issue and the state should support them generously and directly, not through advantaging the married.”

The Village attaches no special value whatsoever to being raised by your own biological parents, or by any two parents for that matter.

It seems to think that having a loving mother and father is just the same as having two loving mothers or two loving fathers, or just one loving parent. This being so, what possible reason would there be for giving marriage in any form special privileges?

Therefore, it accepts the logic of its own position; get the State more or less out of the business of marriage. This is basically what has happened in countries like Sweden and it is happening here also, despite our Constitution.

PS. In defining marriage simply as a loving union, The Village seems to be leaving out sex. Was this its intention? Also, does it believe couples should be permitted to marry out of convenience, not love?