Oddly enough, I hadn't thought of that (definition vs. defense). Good point. Still completely different from what they're saying, the words they use to try to sway the masses.
Exactly, but that's a technique no one has a monopoly on. Pro Lifers & Pro Choicers for example -- I mean who would really admit to being anti-either???
It even goes back to the writing of the Constitution. The idea of the strong central govt (SCG) wasn't popular, so the supporters for the SCG coopted the name "Federal" (which the govt under the Articles of Confederation supposedly was) and thus were born the Federalist Papers, redefining the term for their own purpose -- and guess what, they won. So thoroughly did they win, that today almost no one realizes that the term they use for our SSG came about from a marketing ploy.
Anyway, to put it accurately, what the anti-gays are doing is "Defending (their definition of) Marriage". They aren't claiming to defend any individual's marriage per-se, as much as the institution itself.
I would argue that even the institution won't be hurt if the definition doesn't match what they think it should be. The assumption they make is that it somehow *is* what they say it is in the first place.
I mean, when you stop to think about it, about the only "legal" things that marriage gets you that you cannot get any other way are the tax form thing and "spousal privilege" in a courtroom. Pretty much everything else can be handled contractually.
Re: Because it's brought to you by the "Dept. of Strategery"
Re: Because it's brought to you by the "Dept. of Strategery"
It even goes back to the writing of the Constitution. The idea of the strong central govt (SCG) wasn't popular, so the supporters for the SCG coopted the name "Federal" (which the govt under the Articles of Confederation supposedly was) and thus were born the Federalist Papers, redefining the term for their own purpose -- and guess what, they won. So thoroughly did they win, that today almost no one realizes that the term they use for our SSG came about from a marketing ploy.
Anyway, to put it accurately, what the anti-gays are doing is "Defending (their definition of) Marriage". They aren't claiming to defend any individual's marriage per-se, as much as the institution itself.
I would argue that even the institution won't be hurt if the definition doesn't match what they think it should be. The assumption they make is that it somehow *is* what they say it is in the first place.
I mean, when you stop to think about it, about the only "legal" things that marriage gets you that you cannot get any other way are the tax form thing and "spousal privilege" in a courtroom. Pretty much everything else can be handled contractually.