In the Wall Street Journal today, Nelson Lund opines:

The Supreme Court is hearing two cases this week that represent a challenge to one of the oldest and most fundamental institutions of our civilization. In Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, the court is being asked to rule that constitutional equal protection requires the government to open marriage to same-sex couples.

The claimed right to same-sex marriage is not in the Constitution or in the court's precedents, so the court must decide whether to impose a new law making marriage into a new and different institution.

This, of course, is the great slight-of-hand used by deceitful arguers.  After all, same-sex marriage is not a "new and different institution" — it's the exact same institution as opposite-sex marriage, just applied to different couples.  In the same way that interracial marriage is not a different institution than non-interracial marriage.

Having started with a lie, he sets up his premise:

The justices are unlikely to take so momentous a step unless they are persuaded that granting this new right to same-sex couples will not harm children or ultimately undermine the health of our society.

It's not a "momentous" step if you just apply the equal protection clause.

Lund then looks at the science:

A significant number of organizations representing social and behavioral scientists have filed briefs promising the court that there is nothing to worry about. These assurances have no scientific foundation. Same-sex marriage is brand new, and child rearing by same-sex couples remains rare. Even if both phenomena were far more common, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the long-term effects of redefining marriage.

This is, of course, a delaying tactic.  Did the court in Loving v Virginia wait for years, or decades, to see what the social science said about interracial couple raising kids?

And just what does he think the science is likely to show?  And since when do we throw out the Constitution for fear of what happens when it is applied?

Don't buy this crap.