On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Lonnie Olson <li...@kittypee.com> wrote: > I think at this point all of the rational people that disagree with > marriage equality, do so on the basis of branding. The use of the > word marriage. They feel it should be reserved only for the religious > kind of marriage, and the legal one should have to pick a new brand.
I can understand this feeling as well, but I still disagree with it. Marriage is a very serious, very deeply held and felt part of our culture - and pretty much every human culture that exists. (I would say "every culture" but I don't want someone to come up with some obscure example just to nitpick. I'm not aware of any cultures that don't recognize marriage. Anyway, it doesn't matter.) Maybe we should have a new "brand" for marriage, and maybe marriage should be teased apart from law and government as much as possible. But to maintain the current marriage brand, as powerfully meaningful and deeply felt as it is, and simultaneously deny that label to people based on the gender of the people who want to engage in it, is wrong. They already have the strictly legal options of powers of attorney and all of that. It's not a power of attorney that they want - it's the label of "marriage" that they want. I think we should give it to them, and I feel it strongly enough that I make monthly donations to the Human Rights Campaign. -Dan /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
