Yes, well, and what makes the author think the same isn't true here?
I dunno. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single prominent openly-homosexual conservative member of the US Congress. Can you?
Sorry, I skipped over that "openly." You're right, I can't think of any of those; I was thinking of the many rumors that several conservative congressmen (I don't have names) are gay. Yikes, how's that for tenuous? I'll quit right here.
What problem do you have with legalizing gay "civil unions" rather than gay "marriage"? I don't think it's backwards to argue that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so can't be extended to gay couples. (As George Will argues, why not extend it to trios and quartets?)
Seems like your post displays typical liberal intolerance -- all points of view are valid except when they disagree with mine.
It would be a confused liberalism that thought it had to undermine itself by tolerating intolerance. Reserving "marriage" for one man/one woman unions is objectionable because it's arbitrary and, insofar as one man/one woman is regarded as "standard" (which is the point of reserving the term), other unions are devalued.
Ogged wrote: "It would be a confused liberalism that thought it had to undermine itself by tolerating intolerance."
You are expressing the intolerant point of view. What is maddening is that you can't see it.
Arguing that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is not intolerance. Some intolerant people might make this case, but clearly some tolerant people argue that gay people should be able to have all the rights of union accorded to married straight people without conceding that the definition of marriage has to include gay unions.
This point of view doesn't devalue the union of two men or two women. People who dislike gay unions will look down on gay "marriages" just as they will on gay "civil unions". And under the law we can cause them to have precisely equal value by offering the same rights and benefits to married couples and those in civil union.
How would you answer George Will's point? Why shouldn't the definition of marriage be expanded to include trios and quartets? I would bet that you can't answer that question convincingly without undermining your point or making "marriage" a meaningless term.
Why does Will's point need answering? If the trios and quartets who want to be called "married" can show that their unions embody the essential elements of marriage, then of course they should be allowed to marry.
In what sense am I being intolerant? I submit that the sex of the partners is an inessential component of what makes marriage marriage. The only reason to consider it is prejudice. If you can give me another convincing reason, then I'll retract my blanket "backward."
Marriage has a specific religious definition. In some very popular religions, it is defined as the union of a man and a woman, and done so in the fundamental religious texts. So stating that any member of these religious groups is backward is bigotted.
No >rightsprivileges
If trios and quartets can "marry", I argue that the essence of marriage is being lost.
Actually, I offered you a trick question. There is a public policy objection to accepting the marriage of trios, because there are certain rights accorded to married couples on the assumption that they are each, in fact, just a couple.
Kosher is a great example. What would you think if Jews started insisting that you have to keep Kosher or pay a higher rate of income tax?
That's where your argument unravels.
You are confounding the issue of the availibility of civil union with the semantic issue of the use of the word "marriage".
I can argue against using "marriage" to describe a civil union while denying gay people no right or privilege. I am not forcing them to act in a certain way or penalizing them in any way.
So the right anology would be if a Jew were to tell me that as a gentile I can't "keep kosher" by simply following the rules. (I don't know if any Jew would do this, but that's the fair analogy.) You know what, that's fine by me.
I can argue against using "marriage" to describe a civil union while denying gay people no right or privilege. I am not forcing them to act in a certain way or penalizing them in any way.
This is a straightforward "separate but equal" argument.
Wrong. The government still calls black people "black", or at least not "caucasian" or "white", when it grants them equal rights and enforces those rights.
So if a marriage is the union of a man and a woman, there can be another "thing" that is the union of two men or two women. And the dignity of all humans is respected by simply declaring that the two categories have equal rights and privileges.
You're implicitly arguing for the creation of a class of "semantic rights".
I want to be a national monument.
You're almost correct about "semantic rights." What something is called matters. You're making a separate but equal argument insofar as you're creating a separate set (black schools / civil unions) and arguing that it's just as good as what it mirrors (white schools / marriage).
And you seem confused about what gay marriage means. No church can be compelled to marry people it doesn't want to marry. Gay marriage refers to the civil ceremony conducted by the state and required by the state for the granting of certain rights and privileges. It is a "civil union." The only reason to call it a civil union while reserving the term "marriage" for one man/one woman is prejudice (religious prejudice, if you like). That's fine within each religion--prejudge away--but it's not a legitimate public argument in a pluralistic democratic society.