Thank you.

Actually, when I responded to Cassandra’s quote from the Volokh Conspiracy, which cited some statistics that, as I recall, showed fewer heterosexual couples marrying after Holland passed its civil union law, that was the first time that I realized homosexuals and heterosexuals may be talking about completely different concepts when we talk about “re-defining marriage.”

The ONLY re-definition of marriage that homosexuals want is to be allowed to chose a same-sex spouse. We WANT to have the same everything else: vows, responsibilities and duties as well as the rights and privileges. We want marriage because it provides the tools a couple uses to build a life together.

ALL other mischievous re-definitions of marriage come from trying to compromise with religionists who want to appropriate the apparatus of the state to impose their religious definition of marriage on everyone. The ONLY reasons homosexuals agree to civil unions are that something is better than nothing and we hope that heterosexuals will get used to the idea of same-sex couples and eventually we’ll get marriage equality. So the destructive re-definition of marriage originates with the religionists. I didn’t realize that before.

Cynthia

I don’t expect any “sea change” of views over at VC, but the discussion has continued and I hope I’ve been polite and respectful enough there to communicate my message that this issue affects real lives that matter and that assumptions and generalizations about “worst cases” do a disservice to everyone involved in the debate on this subject.

Dwight Call