Gay Marriage. Refining Bigotry is a Slippery Slope

I am not a proponent of gay marriage being established by the Federal Government since marriage is an institution defined by the States and by religious institutions.    Like it or not, that is how marriage has been established in the past. What is new is that marriage has been redefined on gender boundaries to include same gender unions by proponents for the cause.     You see, it is simply not "equal protection under the law" to exclude same gender relationships from having the same "protections" as "marriage" with the resulting cascade of tax, survivorship, etc ramifications under the law.     I fully support recognizing gay unions on a state by state basis I fully support recognizing gay unions on a state by state basis having all the rights of any other institutionally recognize couple standards.    I simply don't see that this is a Federal issue to force one definition down throats of citizens.    You'll see where i'm going with this later.    But let's just say that a Federal standard will institutionalize bigotry like never before. I  could also support a Federal statute that would have any "union" recognized in one state being enforceable in another state for grounds of taxation, survivorship, estate, and medical decisions.     However, I don't see the label of "marriage" being one that is a Federal power to declare.   If states choose to call their "unions" domestic partnerships or even "corporations" then that is up to the states to declare and for the Federal Government to merely recognize equally.   It is not the Federal Government's power and authority to define the union and its terms. Marriage is a term that means something - it is a STRAIGHT institution.    Proponents of extending same gender relationships under the umbrella of marriage are really sellouts to institutionalizing and bastarding gay unions.    For as long as I can remember the cause for gay equality has sought to deride Straight culture and to slam it as being too rigid, too narrow, and too bigoted.    And yet as a cause for showing legitimacy to gay unions, we seek to homogenize gay relationships into the strict confines of straight unions. What gives? Domestic partnerships seem more appropriate to me as a way to make gay unions exceptional and unique. Domestic partnerships seem more appropriate to me as a way to make gay unions exceptional and unique.    Instead of stealing the term of marriage from heterosexual America and bringing with it the implicit failure of the unions to our culture, we should strive for higher standards and should seek to make our unions exceptional.     How is it a true and just cause to advocate for "marriage" when that institution fails at least half the time when heterosexuals try it?    And we want that as a model for our unions? What also happens when we seek to redefine terms is that when you start the process of making marriage include same gender unions, you also cannot be a bigot and limit unions to only two people.    If marriage should no longer seek to define the limitation on genders, then how can we logically and ethically become prejudiced against plurality unions where more than two consenting adults want to establish their familial units?      How can we be such bigots as to limit these unions - between several men and several women (or any combination thereof) - from equal ratification under the law?     It is certainly possible that a union of one man and five women is just as efficacious as a union of two men.    All are adults, all have implicit conjugal relationships and shared property rights.     How is that homosexuals can be so narrow-minded, so bigoted, so prejudiced against the cause of polygamists who only seek to live their lives as they see fit - with all the trappings of tradition and shared love that they've been accustomed? This analysis really does seek to outline inconsistencies in gay marriage debates that will only be more heated as the current President, a weak man who cannot take a position on anything until he sees political gain from seizing the debate as his own, flip flops and suddenly advocates for "gay marriage".    We already have Vice President Bite Me slip up and advocate for the cause so it is only likely that Obama will be compelled to rebuke his Vice President or to fold and to assume a pro-gay marriage stance.    And by doing so, he will legitimize the bigotry against plurality marriages in a view that is just as bigoted as proponents of traditional marriagists.    And by adopting a pro-gay marriage stance, Obama will also condemn our unions to the same failure future as heterosexuals.    Update:  As I expected Obama doesn't back Gay Marriage on principle - he did what he did solely for the campaign donations that were being withheld by gay donors.   Obama sold out and reaped $1 million in 90 minutes after he changed his position for the third time.    He once had this position as a State Senator but changed it to run for the Senate, waffled on it again as a Presidential candidate, and now only says he supports gay marriage but only through states.    And he has the nerve to call Romney a flip floper - Obama is just like John Kerry - he was for it before he was against it before he was for it.

I welcome your comments to this editorial. Please click on the "comments" link below and let's discuss this.