Decently worded essay on anti-gay marriage fallacies

Dale Carpenter wrote a good essay on why the procreation-oriented definition of marriage is bigotry in disguise, an argument that exists only to prop up the ultimately homophobic reasoning against gay marriage.
Apparently, in this book, the author argues that opposing gay marriage actually devalues marriage, because it reduces marriage to a simple heterosexist privilege.
There is no doubt in my mind that the anti-gay marriage proponents are working a homophobic agenda, no matter what they may say. Sure, most of them cough up some language about "preserving traditional marriage" when they are asked, but scratch them at all, and their disgust or hatred or whatever it is with homosexuals comes right to the surface.
Listening to testimony about the anti-gay amendment on NPR today, I was struck by a woman who stated that the attack on marriage started with the Supreme Court strike-down of sodomy laws. In the world of logic, if somehow you accept that gay marriage would devalue the uniqueness of of straight marriage, sodomy laws still wouldn't apply. Sodomy laws lasted well beyond any laws forbidding adultery, which by any measure is a real threat to marriages. I could go on, but the problem with detailing heterosexual behaviors that undermine "traditional" marriage is that it starts to create a sense that there really is a "traditional" marriage that needs defending. There's no such thing as traditional marriage. There's not even a set way of defining the boundaries of a marriage. As it stands, our working definiton is more positive, where marriage is about love and family, and society's investment in happy, stable homes and the anti-gay movement is doing more damage to this definition of marriage by trying to redefine it as a privilege awarded for being heterosexual than anything else.
Feminism did more to tear down "traditional" marriage than homosexual rights ever could. It redefined the institution (and did so very, very slowly over a couple hundred years not just in the past 30 as pop history would suggest) as a partnership between the couple instead of an ownership situation. Now that there isn't a legal difference between husband and wife there is no reason not to have a wife/wife or husband/husband relationship.
And this is what I suspect is the real cause behind the antipathy towards gay marriage. Conservatives talk in euphemism about how gay marriage could poison straight marriages and liberals are confused. Spelled out, though, it makes perfect sense. If gay couples can marry, then it demonstrates that marriage can exist perfectly well without definite male head of households. It's a threat to "traditional" marriages where husbands have authority over wives.
That's why young people are overwhelmingly more easy-going about gay marriage. It's not that we are necessarily more sexually free. It has more to do with the mundane, the relationship stuff. Young men and women brought up on feminism look more for equality in their mates, and therefore do not see any real difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality except for minor biological differences that don't mean much at all in the long run.