From a comment at Volokh about the New Jersey ruling:
It’s an undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children. The NJ Supreme Court decision yesterday virtually ignored the impacts on children, merely because the current executive branch officials in NJ chose to do so.
We see this argument constantly and no one that uses it offers anything like a rational reason why it actually argues against allowing gays to marry. Here’s the argument:
Person A: We should allow gay people to get married.
Person B: We can’t do that, because marriage is a good thing, it protects and nurtures children.
Uh, okay. I agree, marriage is a very good thing and it protects and nurtures children. Now why doesn’t that apply to children of gay parents as well? And since not one single person currently benefiting from marriage is going to have that situation changed in the slightest by allowing gays to marry, how on earth is this an argument against allowing gays to get married? No one ever seems to answer those two questions and I think there’s a reason for that; there simply is no coherent answer to them.
The New Jersey court did not ignore the impact on children, they recognized, logically, that gay marriage will have a positive impact on the well being and security of those children whose parents are gay, by allowing their parents to form the kind of stable committed relationships, with all the rights and protections and responsibilitiest that come with them, that straight people form everyday. And they recognized that the tens of millions of children currently in families with married parents won’t have that situation changed one iota if the gay couple down the block gets to marry too.