Were I to start a soft drink company, I could market a product identical to Coca Cola. It could taste like it, look like it, smell like it, even have the identical chemical composition.
But, I could not call it Coca Cola. I'd have to come up with a new name, as that brand is already taken.
Now, gays want to take over the brand name enjoyed by heterosexuals: Marriage.
Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. They have every right to have civil unions with all of the rights and responsibilities, not to mention the pitfalls, of marriage.
But, why do they have to call it that? That brand is already taken.
They can have a wedding, a honeymoon, call each other husband, wife, spouse, whatever they like.
The only dispute is over one word: Marriage.
And, while the government should not be in the marriage business, the fact is that it is and isn't likely to get out of it any time soon. The government has a history of applying a new name to the same old thing, and pretending it is something new. So, why not do so in the marriage debate?
California's Proposition 8 redefined, or perhaps confirmed the definition would be a better term, of one word: Marriage. It left intact civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It didn't address words like weddings, spouses, husbands, or wives.
So, why not simply compromise: People who oppose gay marriage can have their brand name, but the gays get their civil unions with the same meaning as marriage. They get to have as splashy and showy a wedding as they wish to have. They can have a wedding license. They can call each other whatever they choose.
\
Seems to me a good compromise, and one that can put an end to a debate that boils down to much ado about one word.
