Two terrific and fresh pieces out on equal marriage rights. James D. Miller looks at the issue as how to deal with a “brand”. He argues:
Brand name analysis proves that civil unions for gay couples can’t fully substitute for marriage. If you started a fast-food restaurant, it would be easier to call your place McDonald’s than to use some new unknown brand name. Sure, in time you could build up this new brand to become as locally well-respected as McDonald’s name, but for the near future at least, you’re better off going with the existing brand.
Miller says the critical question is whether expanding marriage to include gays will “dilute” the brand. I think it will strengthen it by making it universal. Meanwhile, recently married John O’Sullivan thinks imaginatively about the future when gay marriage is a part of the social landscape:
People thinking of living together would then have three choices: civil marriage, religious marriage, and household partnerships. In effect there would be a competition between these three institutions for their custom. Which would be likely to prove most popular and durable? One can only guess at the result of such choices. Here’s my guess … Traditional marriage might well emerge strengthened from this evolutionary test.
I’m truncating his argument here, so please be sure to read the original. I don’t want to Dowdify him.
WHAT THE FMA WOULD DO: Meanwhile, I keep getting emails from people who think the Federal Marriage Amendment is not such a big deal. Here it is:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Note how the states are effectively barred from providing anything that resembles marriage or any of the “legal incidents thereof.” It’s an attempt not only to reverse any state that wants to have same-sex marriage but to invalidate all domestic partnership laws, any state-provided benefits, or any support for same-sex couples anywhere anyhow. It’s a massive power-grab from the states, in an area where states have always had constitutional authority. If you merely want to stop one state’s marriages being nationalized, you have the power already. It’s called the Defense of Marriage Act, alongside the long established precedent of states being able not to recognize out of state marriages for public policy reasons. The FMA, in contrast, is an attempt to use the federal constitution to rob gay citizens of any rights in their relationships whatsoever, regardless of where they live or what their states want. It’s not conservative. It’s a radical attempt to impose one religious view of marriage upon the whole citizenry for ever. It’s about the constitutional disenfranchisement of an entire class of citizens.
The Dish 