Here's another person who buys into the reasoning that gay marriage is ... too much, for lack of a any way to summarize.
Bob appears not to have listened to the people who are fighting 'gay marriage' the most ardently. Newsflash: they don't want any public relationship recognition, many of them, for gays and lesbians. None. Not "civil unions", not "marriages".
To them, it's the same fight, so ... it's not really a fight that you can duck. The notion that there is a 'choice' about which fight to pick is to a very large extent false (except maybe on a tactical basis - or in oddball beliefnet discussions).
Which brings us to this:
The fact is most of us won't marry even if we have the right to.
This smacks of outright first-person bias, not necessarily of the good kind. "We" may not marry, sure. We've all come of age in a different world. But young, gay kids should have the same opportunities as their non-gay peers. What the future holds for them, who knows. We can say, though, with confidence, that it will NOT look anything like the 70s, 80s, or 90s.
If gays and non-gays decide that marriage is a 'failed institution', then so be it. A kind of formal equality will have been satisfied.
Until then, the notion that committed gay and lesbian couples cannot have their relationships blessed, by both the State and the Church, is, in fact, an issue of equality and liberation.
To opine that 'gays know better' about relationships, based on 'sexual liberation', seems to be irrelevant, a side discussion (and nearly as universally proscriptive as those who wish the reverse for everyone...). The truth is, in an advanced and truly tolerant society, both can co-exist, right?
Flashback:
In Iowa, "Support has been overwhelming."
