I think that an important difference is the name. You may scoff, but it seems quite clear that reserving the name of "marriage" for heterosexual unions clearly seems to be very important to a very large segment of the body politic.
Sure it is. Now. Give them a chance to get used to the idea and alot of them will be unable to find the harm in SSM
Another difference that I anticipate will develop will be the incentives
for producing and raising children. These incentives will be applied to marriages, but not to civil unions. Civil unions, will however, acquire
many of the rights of marriage that currently formalize the intimate
partnership.
Wow, nookie incentives! Maybe we could pass out viagra, girly magazines and sex toys to get the faint of heart more interested eh? For someone that's normally against big government you're sure pushing the envelope in the opposite direction here.
Equal protection. If we amend the constitution to outlaw same sex marriages, we will be
codifying bigotry (again.)
Again, not to be flip about it, but homosexuals remain free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
In my mind, this is at minimum a very salient *legal* difference, especially given the current reliance upon "equal protection" grounds of the current pro homosexual marriage arguments I have seen.
Well, in my mind it's bigotry, pure and simple, and I'm hoping that a good number of people, when they really think about it, will agree.
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
