I’ve heard two arguments that some Conservatives get behind that could result in this (not saying I agree, just pointing them out.) One is Cheney’s Federalist approach, leaving it to the States and to the people (re 10th Amendment) to define their contract standards for this issue. The second is the privacy approach, removing the ‘sex’ field from the marriage license (ie, it isn’t Big Brother’s business what sex or sexual orientation anyone is).
None of these would be acceptable to the left because it isn’t really about making this particular contract more accessible but about forcing acceptance of the lifestyle.
The second is the privacy approach, removing the ‘sex’ field from the marriage license (ie, it isn’t Big Brother’s business what sex or sexual orientation anyone is).
I lean to states’ rights...but not with portablility. I think marriage between two same sexers is crazy...wildly anti-social...and destructive...but if a state says marriage is legal in your state, don’t move to one where it isn’t - or you are no longer married. Same would go for civil unions, or anything else that a state would sanely be able to regulate...then we could all find a home state with laws we like and let MA, CT, NY and CA go (further) to hell... “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Or to put simply, its DD up + DD down. (defining Deviancy up and defining Decency down)
Marriage is not a government institution, and it is no more in the govt perview to redefine marriage than it is to redefine white or black.
To which can be added the “conservation of institutions” argument. If society is going to recognize these relationships, and stable contractual relationships are in the interests of the people and the state, then you permit entry into the existing institutions rather than creating new ones. i.e. Civil Unions.