Equality Loundon has up a post about a recent forum entitled Gay Marriage: Evidence from Europe? Participating in the forum were Yale law professor William (Bill) Eskridge and Maggie Gallagher, a Yale graduate and anti-gay marriage industry scholar. Seems that it wasn’t much of a debate at all.
Bill studied Denmark from 1989 (when registered partnerships were legalized) to present and found that since 1989:
- More co-habiting heterosexuals are marrying
- The law helped international business
- Public health improved due to a reduction in HIV and other diseases
[…]
Maggie, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a think tank that bears the motto “Strengthening marriage for a new generation” polled the 100 person crowd to see who she was talking too. 65% favored marriage equality, 25% opposed and 10% felt it was none of Maggie’s business, a typical crowd for her. Maggie felt that Bill’s arguments made sense for civil unions, but not for marriage because every society across the globe has had a singular concept of heterosexual marriage which must be protected from same-sex marriage and no-fault divorce and stuff like that…
Emphasis is mine. There it is – that old terminology debate. Marriage versus civil unions. It seems ludicrous that the semantics of the argument have not yet been resolved. In my mind, marriage is a religious institution, and given the separation of church and state, should not be a part of the discussion. If a church doesn’t want to marry a gay couple, that’s OK. Civil unions, on the other hand, are the legal part, that little piece of paper that the government calls a “marriage license.” It is that piece of paper that gives legal status to the relationship. I actually know people who have gotten married in a church – because they wanted to announce their life-long committment to each other before God and family – but never got a license – for financial reasons.
The current so-called “marriage amendment” that Virginia voters will face in November not only denies marriage (the religious institution – which the state has no business messing with) but also civil unions. When the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy agrees that civil unions are OK, you know that amendment needs to be stopped.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
But Maggie wants to have it both ways. She says she would vote for the VA amendment anyway, because she wants the first paragraph in our Constitution so badly. So much for her support for civil unions. We are nothing but collateral damage to her, the security of our families and our fundamental liberties expendable, as if we’re not quite human enough to matter. And at the same time, she wants to be absolved of any responsibility for feeling that way. She believes she’s “not a bigot,” and for us to demonstrate otherwise by telling our stories somehow constitutes us victimizing her.
All I can say is “wow.”
Yeah, I saw that. 😦