Quote: Rev Dark wrote:
Logan - good on you, except one point.
What is "Tradition bound marriage"?
Fuck if I know, really. I don't really give a personal damn. The only reason I brought it up was as a strategic point. Not as an endorsement of the idea.
You know - the phrase "traditional marriage" is a phrase used by all those people who think marriage is one way and always has been. (Not so, as you
pointed out) They see gay marriage as a threat. Actually they see homosexuals as a threat period. Stupid. Morons. Every. Last. One.
The only reason I used the phrase was in reference to the overall tactic of taking on "the establishment" head-on in a sensitive (to them) place. I
KNEW several years ago that it would come to this. It disgusts me, but it doesn't really surprise me. I just happen to think that if the movement had gone
with "civil unions for everyone" instead of "you HAVE to make a law (or court ruling) that says marriage applies to same-sex unions as well as
male-female" then they could have "eased" the public into acceptance. But I for one think the way they decided to go about it (head on
confrontation) was a terrible blunder. It's lead to backlashes such as this one.
But nothing for it now but to go on the path chosen. And as I said above, if the spunkwipes want to take it to the level of rescinding marriages that have
already gone through, then I'm all for just going ahead and fighting for it.