If you say yes to civil unions, then there is no reason not to accept polyamorous ‘civil unions’ or any type of union. What limits could there be?
“If you say yes to civil unions, then there is no reason not to accept polyamorous ‘civil unions’ or any type of union. What limits could there be?”
No. It would not necessarily mean that. Civil unions are being adopted with a specific purpose in mind - monomgamous “same-sex” COUPLES. It will/would be easier to maintain that very basic intent.
However, the legal arguments in use and accepted by too many judges for REDEFINING marriage to accomodate “same-sex” couples CREATES the slippery slope of MARRIAGE being opened up to anyone who wants it, because it is a demand for redefining it on “universal” terms.
We wanted to preserve MARRIAGE, both in law and socially. By arguing against the separate and distinct civil unions, the goal post was moved - GO DIRECTLY TO MARRIAGE.
I think the mistake was forcing the whole issue into the legal definition of marriage. Tolerating under law, the separate civil unions, would have done more to protect marriage socially as well as legally - as separate and distinct.