Note too that the proposed language of the amendment would likely outlaw civil unions as well.
Ah, but he doesn't endorse that language in particular, does he? At least he's saying that the amendment would cover marriage only, and leave room for CUs. Billmon's got a good post on this & its importance in the Rove strategizing, btw.
The strategy of these anti-same-sex marriage arguments is worth noting: they seem to always take on the position that they are protecting a historical institution against a threat that will destroy it. They keep the argument as abstract as possible. It's, "it will hurt marriage," never, that I have seen, "it will hurt my marriage." The second just sounds so silly. So I propose a new slogan for the anti-SS marriage folks, one that's more concrete, one that's closer to what they're really talking about, "If Bob married Dick, my marriage will be worthless." Catchy?
Nice. Let's order up some bumper stickers.
I guess the thought is that if they made claims about particular harms to particular people, the claims would look silly, but if they talk about THE INSTITUTION it sounds sort of plausible without having a lot of content. I mean, what's harm to the institution? Fewer people marrying? Married couples doing a lot of swinging? Will it be like the 70s? Enquiring minds want to know.
I would love it if someone said, hey, it will hurt my marriage! I mean, that would be funny.
Why can't these people read what the bible actually says?
Marriage is clearly defined as being betwen one man and one women. Or two women. Or three. Or in the case of Solomon, a thousand wives and concubines.
Five thousand years of history my ass.