Speaking of the marriage debate that occurred in 2004 and 2005, Stand Your Ground writes:
And what counter-arguments (beside those "bigoted", "narrow-minded", "religious" and "reactionary") could one come up with? What would he say to anyone asking him - why not? If the institution of marriage is merely a registrar of conjugal partners, irregardless of their gender - why can't siblings be registered as conjugal partners? And why should the registration be limited to only 2 partners at a time? After all - if, according to our "progressive" courts, a child can have more than 2 "legal parents", why can't a "marriage for civil purposes" include more than 2 partners?
Back during the marriage debate, we kept saying that this is exactly that would happen. Our arguments were ridiculed as "slippery slope alarmism". Now, when everything we were warning about is actually happening, are there many "tolerant" "open-minded" "progressives" out there ready to admit that they were wrong? Or are they already preparing to give in, picturing themselves in the front lines of a battle to "legalize" some other kind of "something-something-marriage"?
Actually, I think that they don't care. They probably want this to happen.
Marriage doesn't really mean anything to them.
I'm sympathetic to the twin sisters, but the answer is not to make them the equivalent of spouses.
American defenders of marriage: pay heed.
