There is no replacement nor substitute for marriage that will have the legal power marriage has received since English Canon Law. A civil union is more difficult to dissolve (which makes divorce very difficult) and does not guarantee the same protections a married couple gets. A civil union isn't even second place: it's bondage without the safe word.
The most compelling ways to sell gay marriage to the rest of America involve comparing anti-gay-marriage laws to the old miscegenation laws and throwing the "two parents" argument back in the faces of those that scream against children out of wedlock and against divorce. None of this is grand logic, but the people arguing the most about marriage being "one man and one woman" are not thinking rationally. They're thinking: "Only white folks deserve my sanctimonious concept of marriage and why can't we just deport anyone I don't like and...".
Perhaps it's time for another tactic: make marriage look boring, since really it is. Have ads where two women or two men have a grumbling time in public or any other normal married spat. Then shave the narrator say "It's just like your life. Why deny anyone the chance to be annoyed with one's spouse?"
I'm immensely in favor of gay marriage. Unfortunately, I'm seriously unsure whether I'd want to get married to a man or a woman. The battle has given marriage a patina. Meanwhile, it's an expensive way to prove you'd be willing to accept someone else's debts. Why should I ruin my credit rating just to prove I love someone? That sounds like a drunken dare.
There are positive sides to marriage. Everyone of legal age should be able to marry anyone else of legal age other than blood relatives. The blood relatives portion is important: marrying into your own family, even without breeding, is a way to avoid inheritance taxes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
10/6/08 17:37 (UTC)The most compelling ways to sell gay marriage to the rest of America involve comparing anti-gay-marriage laws to the old miscegenation laws and throwing the "two parents" argument back in the faces of those that scream against children out of wedlock and against divorce. None of this is grand logic, but the people arguing the most about marriage being "one man and one woman" are not thinking rationally. They're thinking: "Only white folks deserve my sanctimonious concept of marriage and why can't we just deport anyone I don't like and...".
Perhaps it's time for another tactic: make marriage look boring, since really it is. Have ads where two women or two men have a grumbling time in public or any other normal married spat. Then shave the narrator say "It's just like your life. Why deny anyone the chance to be annoyed with one's spouse?"
I'm immensely in favor of gay marriage. Unfortunately, I'm seriously unsure whether I'd want to get married to a man or a woman. The battle has given marriage a patina. Meanwhile, it's an expensive way to prove you'd be willing to accept someone else's debts. Why should I ruin my credit rating just to prove I love someone? That sounds like a drunken dare.
There are positive sides to marriage. Everyone of legal age should be able to marry anyone else of legal age other than blood relatives. The blood relatives portion is important: marrying into your own family, even without breeding, is a way to avoid inheritance taxes.