Shanna Moakler, a former Miss USA, spoke frankly about her opposition to the California marriage amendment:
[click here to read more below the fold]
"I find most people have a problem with the word marriage. What I hope for is helping others understand 'civil union' and then one day helping people learn 'marriage' is something not God, not the state or country can solidify, but between two people who love each other". [sic]
If, in her view, civil union (aka gay union) does not need to be solidified by society, then, she must mean it would be redundant to issue licenses for it. Society, through the law and through our governments, need not do what two people can do on their own.
There is no love requirement for a license to form a domestic partnership in California so her point about gay union may be valid, or not.
Her remark is wrong about solidifying the social institution of marriage.
Anyway, to teach people her valuable lesson about gay union, Shanna Moakler will first instruct us that gay union lacks a core meaning and that society does not need to solidify gay union; then she will try to persuade people that marriage, too, lacks sufficient meaning to be accorded a preferential status.
She would hope to inform the public about gay union and then to misinform the public about marriage.
Her ambition is to teach people that her hollow concept of gay union is the equivalent of marriage. And that, in her view, gay union cannot be solidified by society -- the state or the country -- nor by God. For Shanna Moakler the people who'd form a gay union need go no further than to self-reference. They do not need extra validation of their private romance.
This appears to be yet another admission by an SSMer that there is no plausible basis for merging nonmarriage with marriage.
She says that the problem is the word, marriage, which shows that she has not understood the actual problem with discarding the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. I'm glad she spoke so frankly and plans to continue to do so on behalf of the anti-8ers.
Thank you, Shanna Moakler, and I hope your message about gay union reaches far and wide. Your ill-formed message about the anti-8 side's view of marriage will be debunked again and again.
See: NBC LA News.
How could a gay union be equivalent to marriage? Marriage involves both sexes while a gay union involves only one sex. Humanity is both sexed and marriage is able to reveal the diversity of humanity. A gay union involves only one sex and by its very nature rejects the other sex. Should gay unions be called marriages, governments would then be treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives.
ReplyDelete