[ArGee]

But marriage is a thousands-year-old institution with ancient layers of meaning--it is folly to think that you can, on a whim, force a wholesale change in it without paying a serious price.

I agree. That is why I am against civil unions.

What I am trying to understand is why doing exactly what you say we should not do, but giving it another name, will avoid that price.

They have a sexual relationship. They have children. They are a family. They have common property. They have joint bank accounts. They are benificiaries on each others' life insurance properties. One gets benefits from the employer of the other. Each is a member of the others' extended family and they both visit together at holidays.

Aren't they married?

Shalom.

[Political Junkie Too]

They have children.

If I can pick nits too, let me point out that they don't "have children," they raise somone else's children (adoption) or one is inseminated by a donor's (known or unknown) sperm, or the child is born from a prior heterosexual relationship.

-PJ

[Mamzelle]

You can construct all kinds of legal vehicles and authorities--and you could always do so. Marriage is an ancient family institution, created to protect and support families, children, women and family-held property, in that order.

Changing the definition of marriage is a means by which alternative lifestylers seek to force a gesture of approval and support from the mainstream. "We have to be OK with you, 'cause it's marriage. Haha. We've hijacked your sacrament, and there isn't a darned thing you can do about it."

The whole movement is one of spite. And it looks like it'll be successful...

The undiscussed consequence, I believe, is when those shacking up seek to sanction their "unions" post hoc...through a divorce, though no marriage took place. Palimonious disputes will skyrocket.