And, of course, this is the problem with "civil unions": they're not called "marriage."
Now, I wouldn't use any of the conventional terms for heterosexual sex to describe gay sex, so I'm understandably reluctant to let activists start redefining other traditionally heterosexual terms just to stuff an agenda down the public's throat.
Even so, I recognize a legitimate equal protection claim on the part of gays -- they have real challenges getting their partners recognized as next-of-kin.
What's interesting here is that I believe support for civil unions -- and thus for addressing the equal protection issue -- is high even if the public doesn't want to call it marriage. Gays who are holding out for marriage are not helping the cause of gays who need the legal remedy of civil union. Even worse, that legitimate claim is jeopardized by the implication that this is really all about social engineering.
English is what's known as a "natural language." Dictionaries don't tell us how to speak it; they simply document how it's spoken. That said, when was the last time you can remember government being used to redefine a word you use all the time? Was it 1984?
Recent Comments