Matt makes it:
I was thinking recently that if you really wanted to do something to shore up the sanctity of marriage then rather than ban gay marriages you ought to ban, say, fourth marriages. It's one thing to say that people who make a mistake ought to get a second chance, but serial nuptuals really do make a mockery of the institution's basic premises in a way that same-sex couples don't. Maybe some people just need to admit to themselves that they have no business making promises of life-long commitment.
Initially, I wanted to ban third marriages, but it seems worth watering the proposal down in order to enhance political feasibility and secure access to the much-vaunted "three strikes and you're out" catchphrase.
In the interests of pushing the envelope, I'll take the the anti-third marriage position - ticking off Rush Limbaugh yet again, no doubt - thereby making Matt's "three strikes and you're out" approach the moderate, bipartisan position on the question. Now all we need is for David Broder to write a column endorsing it ...