I haven't had the time to go through all 1,049 marital benefits provided by
The Fool, but I did mention that two key ones would be:
1) Reservation of the name "marriage" for heterosexual unions 2) "Marriages" having a preference, ceteris paribis, for unconnected adoptions of children.
Wow, if that's really all you can think of off the top of your head, it's precious little for the associated hoopla. 1) "marriage" is just a word and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to keep a person from calling a civil union a marriage if they want to. Think about it. If you point to a couple, gay or straight, are you likely to ask "Are they civily unionized?" Really, all things considered, ammending the constitution to reserve a word for a certian segment of the population seems a bit silly. and 2) traditional marriages would probably retain preference even if SSMs were allowed (whether or not that is justifiable) mostly because of the factors you mentioned in your FMA post.
What really bothers me on this issue (and also on the "under God" discussions) is that yours is the politics of exclusion in a country that by it's very definition (in the DoI) is supposed to be inclusive. The U.S. doesn't have a perfect record WRT inclusion, but it's record is one of progress towards that ideal, and really it's one of the cornerstones of the country's greatness. The marriage amendment would be a huge step backwards, IMO.
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
