I'll answer your direct question, but I want to (again and hopefully for the last time) refute yet another misrepresentation of my position. Specifically, you write:

Today we also see the collapse of the former consensus against legally-sanctioned homosexual partnerships, a development regarding which you have lamented at some length.

I have absolutely not "lamented" legally sanctioned homosexual partnerships. Nor have I ever held that such partnerships should not afford all rights, responsibilities and entitlements that marriages provide. The only thing I have lamented is the use of the same noun to describe two different relationships. My great friend of the last 35 years also strongly encouraged me to change my position on that topic, but even he, in the end, agreed that a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship are not the same relationship. I then asked him why he wanted to use the same noun to describe the two distinct relationships and he said, in essence, that if we didn't, some people would see one as inferior to the other (Aside: he's known me personally long enough to know that I was not in this imagined group). I still think it's stupid to use the same noun for two different things but that in no way should be taken to mean that I believe that homosexual relationships should have any lessened rights and/or privileges vis-a-vis marriage. I know I've said "with the possible exception of adoption" because, well, I think the jury's out on if and/or how being raised in a same-sex household would impact kids. Of course, the next generation is screwed anyway. I recently discovered that more children will live through their family's bankruptcies than will live through their parents' divorce. But I digress.

I believe the Loving decision correct but have always been troubled by the hyperbole with respect to the institution of marriage in the decision. Warren wrote, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man', fundamental to our very existence and survival" but the cited opinion said (emphasis mine), "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Warren appears to be making the presumption that marriage implicitly implied procreation (interestingly, I took some heat for making the same presumption). But I disagree with his interpretation of Douglas in Skinner. I read Skinner as saying reproduction is a fundamental right. The fact that most often occurs as a consequence of marriage is why marriage was even mentioned. I do not believe that marriage in and of itself can ever rightly be considered a civil right. I'd be open to the idea that procreation in and of itself is a civil right, but marriage on its own? I find the idea ludicrous.