For millennia, ‘Marriage’ has been between a man and a woman.
Call it the Natural Order of things…it took one of each to procreate, and without that grouping the human species would have died out long ago.
(You can’t fool Mother Nature – don’t blame others…blame Nature.)
So, for those of a different partnership choice, please use a different terminology.
Those who want a same-sex partnership, yet seek similar benefits as marriage, should be able to do so. But not at the expense of turning traditional language on its head.
In the matter of same-sex unions, then, call it ‘unioniage’… If ‘words matter’.
As Chief Justice Roberts noted, you can force a child to call another child a ‘friend’, but if that other child doesn’t fit the definition, you’ve removed all meaning from the word.
And, it’s not a ‘civil right’.
Because - where there’s not a choice (like being born female, or being born black) -partnership contracts are a choice…and as such do not fit the ‘civil rights’ criteria.
Think of it like incorporating; just as you can choose a corporation, an ‘S’ corporation, or an LLC type, to fit your needs…so you can choose a ‘marriage’, or a ‘unioniage’…they all offer benefits and protections, based on differing criteria to fit the needs for each.
One can argue that, if a ‘unioniage’ gives a same-sex partnership all the benefits of a marriage (under law), and thus all ‘rights’ are protected, then the only point left to claiming the ‘marriage’ title for a same-sex union is to force its re-definition.
Forcing a redefinition doesn’t make it right. Here’s a fun real-time demonstration…
Joining two beverages, orange juice to vodka, makes a ‘screwdriver’.
When your gay friends claim privilege to redefine marriage at, say, a dinner party, pour them an orange-juice/orange-juice mix: tell them it’s a newly-redefined ’screwdriver’…
…and if they can get intoxicated drinking it…they can get ‘married’!