If you are against Gay Marriage or Civil Unions, why?

[Torie]

The only issue in my mind is should gay couples get federal benefits, like social security survivor benefits. But beyond that, the claims about the harm calling gay partnerships marriages, rather than civil unions (that is what this is about these days), are bogus. What this is really about is demeaning such relationships - giving them the finger - because well, it's different.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you elucidated why, DWTL? Maybe you have, and I missed it. Just asking.

One odd thing, is out there on the Fruited Plain, it is more and more just about what name is given to gay unions, with the only thing  left to argue about is the moniker, and the moniker alone. Should this gay thing be a union about which none dare give it a name of marriage? 

Heck, the California supreme court decision was solely about the issue of moniker, and held that denying the moniker violated a fundamental un-enumerated but extant right in the California state constitution  regarding  the right of pursuit of liberty to explore the self, without being demeaned and degraded with substandard labeling. It was as if they had copied and pasted the soaring rhetoric of Justice Kennedy of the Supremes, who sometimes I thinks takes a toke of some very good weed, before he puts pen to paper.

[Torie]

Alcon, I think I know the path to fashioning a reasonably plausible (not winning really, but at least something other than just running  on empty, or reverting to the Bible) case against gay marriage. Maybe I will reveal it, and maybe I will not.