The Mass. state Senate passed a civil unions bill that gives gays all the rights of marriage without the title. Now everyone’s trumpeting it as some great victory for marriage. Why? It’s not the word we’re worried about, it’s the institution. By giving same-sex couples all the legal rights, privileges, and recognition of marriage—whatever you call it—you are robbing marriage of its role in society and contributing to its destruction.
Yet, here we have politicians and constitutional scholars and assorted pundits running around worried that the Mass. Supreme Court won’t like it if they pass a civil unions bill instead of a gay marriage bill. And all the homosexual activists rub their hands with glee because they know that the battle has already been won.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe pretends that the difference means something:
While cautioning that nobody has a “crystal ball,” Tribe pointed to the long-agonized, 4-3 nature of the SJC decision and said civil unions might be enough to flip one of the justices in the majority, in the wake of political leaders’ outcry against full-blown gay marriage. “It wouldn’t shock me,’’ Tribe said. “It would disappoint me in terms of the question of whether the court has the courage of its convictions, but it wouldn’t be the first time that a court has injected a dose of political realism into its determinations.”
The courage of it’s convictions? Give me a break, Tribe. There isn’t an iota of difference between the civil union bill and gay marriage.
You can spit in my face and call it rain, but I still know what it is.