You're right, Mr. Huntsman: 'Redefinition' *is* impossible
Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman is actually pretty spot on here:
HUNTSMAN: I think redefining marriage is something that would be impossible and it’s something I would not be in favor of. But I believe, just subordinate to marriage we have not done an adequate job in the area of equality and reciprocal beneficiary rights. I’ve spoken out about that, my support of civil unions, some people like it, some people don’t.
Jon Huntsman: ‘Redefining Marriage Is Something That Would Be Impossible’ [Think Progress -LGBT]
We say "spot on" because he's pretty much right: "Redefining marriage" via same-sex unions alone would, in fact, be impossible. That's because marriage, as currently defined, is quite capable of accommodating same-sex couples, as has been proven both in this country and worldwide for quite some time now. Why should any of us be in favor of redefinition, when mere accommodation will do just fine? Why should any of us seek new meaning, when most marriage laws, as written before the anti-gay DOMAs and amendments (i.e. redefinitions) crept in, were quite capable of supporting same-sex couples? And why should gays be intimidated by this "redefinition" nonsense, when nature's definition has always included our family forms and equal protection's definition must quite logically do the same (as written)?
Even Merriam-Webster, an outfit that knows a thing or two about definitions, has caught on to the breadth of marriage. So here's hoping that in future statements on the subject, Mr. Huntsman will stop even dignifying right-wing buzz words like "redefinition." In doing so, perhaps Mr. Huntsman will find that redefining GOP primary politics might not be as impossible as some pollsters would have him believe?
comments powered by Disqus