I probably should've said religious institutions and individuals. I don't know, I have never been to keen on marriage as a institution, how it's so weighed down in historical patriarchy kind of makes it poisonous to me. I just find the splitting of hairs over "marriage" and "civil unions" to be nonsense.
That distinction was just created by the a reaction to religious right pressure by activists to make the idea more appealing to the public. In a long term strategic sense we may have shot ourselves in the foot, since it gives people a chance to vote against gay marriage and still feel like they aren't denying a right or a privilege.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
If we did it that way, the religious right would take it as a mandate that Christianity really does own marriage as a concept.
Also: As has been demonstrated in Oregon, even though they might say they're down with civil unions, they're opposed to those as well.
no subject
That distinction was just created by the a reaction to religious right pressure by activists to make the idea more appealing to the public. In a long term strategic sense we may have shot ourselves in the foot, since it gives people a chance to vote against gay marriage and still feel like they aren't denying a right or a privilege.