There's two ways to go about this:
1) Massachusetts: Don't redefine marriage, and instead just give civil unions the same legal rights as marriage. This method allows allows 2 gay people to join together, without redefining a word meant originally to define a specific religious ceremony between a Christian man and woman, and allow the 2 gay people to join and yet retain all the same legal recognition by the state.
2) Washington: Redefine the meaning of the word marriage, and piss off social conservatives.
One method is respectful of the religious practice of others, the other is not.
If you oppose the redefining of words in our modern lexicon, like, "income" which actually means "gains or earnings on some sort of corporate activity", and has nothing to do with hourly wages, which is the fruits of your labor and is your personal private property, (a tactic progressives have used for 100 years), then how can you justify redefining the meaning of the word "marriage"?
My view is that if you want to create acceptance of something new, create a new word, and define it how you want.
Full disclosure: 1) I live in Washington. 2) I don't care what 2 people do in the privacy of their own home. If 2 gay people want to join together, and have the state recognize them, fine, but is it necessary to do so in such a way as to inflame others by redefining a word for a specific religious ceremony? I don't believe this is necessary. I believe that gay people should be free to join together, (I do not wish to use the force of law to stop them, although I may not agree with their lifestyle choices). All I ask is they make up a new word to define their relationship, and not steal (act of theft) a word meant to define the joining of a man and woman before God.
That's my personal opinion. I didn't get it anywhere, but developed my opinion on my own. I believe there are some very libertarian principals inherent in my opinion others may like, and some will abhor. I believe that how Massachusetts did it could lead to more tolerance. I realize not all may agree with my opinion. Please, if you have a different opinion, tell me where you think I am wrong, but don't insult.
In closing, I think the best solution is to abolish all state recognition of marriage and civil unions. What right does the state have to interfere with the joining of 2 people who love each other? I know there are insurance things and death benefits, and stuff like that though. But still, government doesn't have a proper role in marriage. The last wedding I went to (7th Day Adventist) they omitted the whole "by the power invested in me by the state of Washington" crap. I liked that.
Thank you for reading.
I love you.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: