The Monday, November 8, 2010 edition of the Guardian featured an article by Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle entitled "Heterosexual couple make second attempt for civil partnership." The article begins, "A heterosexual couple will request a civil partnership - available only to same-sex couples in the UK - at a register office in London tomorrow, to take a stand against a system which they say "segregates couples according to their sexuality".This unmarried, heterosexual couple is a part of a revolutionary movement in British society. The members no longer want marriage to be recognized for what it is, a lifelong union between one man and one woman open to the bearing and rearing of children. They are dedicated to making the State give legal equivalency to non-marital relationships, homosexual or heterosexual. Then, they want to force the rest of society to call what can never be a marriage to be a marriage (homosexual partnerships) by using the Police Power of the State to enforce their new order.
I wonder how many people saw that coming. The progression goes like this:
Gay marriage advocates want broad societal endorsement of their lifestyle --> They seek this endorsement through legal channels, such as equal rights --> In an attempt to appease LGBT groups, instead of simply redefining marriage, they grant a concession by creating homosexual partnerships (domestic partnerships/civil unions here) that provide for the same rights as married couples --> By exploiting the application of the definition of those civil unions, gay rights advocates will now use that as a means for redefining marriage, which is what they were really going for all along. It's brilliant, right?