[lbo-talk] Gay marriage

[John Thornton]

Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, John Thornton wrote:
>
>> It makes no difference if one calls it marriage or civil union IF we 
>> only use one term.
>
> This is a totally theoretical question since, in order to have civil 
> unions be the equal term, you'd have to abolish marriage, which would 
> be even harder than instituting gay marriage.
>
> But I would argue that even in this science fiction counterfactual, it 
> still isn't true. The term "civil union" wouldn't have the magic of 
> marriage precisely because it's a new term.
>
> The thing about the term marriage -- the good thing and the bad thing 
> -- is that, for all the variation in the customs, there is virtually 
> no dispute about the term.  Virtually all societies in all eras have 
> one univocal term that we translate as marriage.  And it's always 
> previously been between a man and a woman.
>
> If we use that term and now make it between two men or two women we've 
> accomplished something epochal that is part only epochal because it 
> uses and transforms that pivotal term.
>
> And if we make up a new term, not so much.  The magic is gone.  
> Removing the magic for straight people as well as gay people might be 
> equitable. But it's not what the majority of either sex preference 
> currently wants. And especially not the majority of gay people, for 
> whom it means so much more.  They want to have what everyone else in 
> history has had.  Not a functional equivalent.
>
> Michael

Well according to Bill Bartlett, fuck same sex couples for wanting the 
same garbage laden term used for their unions.
The left should make them see the wisdom of accepting its functional 
equivalent. A pox on their house as well!

 
All of the above in Michael Pollak's post are part of the reason that 
separate would not be equal in the case of marriage vs. civil unions no 
matter how much Bill argues otherwise.
Of course marriage today means something quite different than it did 100 
years ago so why should anyone imagine it's meaning today is immutable?
No one has yet to explain to me why marriage today is such a horrible 
institution. Some sort of state recognition of familial rights needs to 
exist as far as I can see.

John Thornton