Isn't this kind of like saying racism requires a measure of malice to be racism? Would it be any more acceptable to champion separate but equal policies if you did it with a gentle heart? Because that's what the "marriage versus civil union" debate smacks of. They're separate institutions, you see. Separate... But equal. And that's totally okay, right? The author's argument rests on the idea that if we call anti-gay marriage advocates homophobic, that leaves little impact for homophobia as a descriptor for more violent offenders. But homophobia, like racism, exists as a gradient, not a dichotomy. Speaking against gay marriage might be soft homophobia, but it's still homophobia.
I can see the author's point, but I'm also unsure whether I agree with it. Of course there are plenty of people who are good people who hold some prejudiced points of view. I think that's universal whether we're talking about race, sexuality or any kind of identity. But specifically with marriage, I think that not just gays, but everybody should have to get a "civil union" to get protection under the law. Why should the state recognize an inherently religious ceremony? I think that everyone should have equal protection under the law, and that only officers of the law (e.g. judges, clerks, mayors, etc.) should have the authority to grant civil standing to couples. If couples want to have a traditional wedding as well, then that is their right, too, but it's then a private matter that has no meaning beyond the meaning which the couple and their loved ones ascribe to it (which, obviously, can be huge; I'm not trying to minimize what a wedding is to the affected).
You're totally right- plenty of good people hold prejudices. Those prejudices, IMO, are only problematic when they're obscured or repainted as innocuous. In which case, they either stagnate and fester in the hearts and minds of otherwise good people, or else they're allowed to blossom in more malicious circles. Think we can all stand to be called out on our prejudices every once in a while, for the sake of building a stronger society. No need to simply write them off as flukes in an otherwise healthy worldview. Totally with you on the civil union thing. Civil union should be the parallel secular status granted to all married couples for policy implementation purposes. Like when you go to get your marriage license, you also get your civil union form. Or is this already how it works in some places? Pretty sure that right now, that's not how it works. Currently, I think marriage generally has to be defined and confirmed by the state, and then that's the basis for all the rights that marriage affords. And that version seems really backwards. Requiring state validation of marriage provides all sorts of political disincentives to support less traditional unions. Seems like it would make a lot more sense, both for political purposes and in the interest of church/state separation to establish the following policy standard: Each religious institution has the right to decide whether or not they want to allow gay marriage. All marriages effected by religious institutions will be recognized as civil union by the state. That would support religious freedom, offer an outlet for everybody to get married if they want to, and make the whole gay marriage thing less of a political minefield, as it doesn't have to be specifically addressed in legislation.
Interesting point. How could we explain a person like an insurance actuary, that is only anti-gay marriage due to damage he/she predicts it will do to his/her company? Let's say that person has forged this veiwpoint solely on financials? Should this person be considered homophobic, or just a greedy a--hole? Or, on the flip-side, how do you describe the same insurance acutary that is pro-gay marriage only because there is a tidy sum of money to be made from the new partnership insurance premiums that are on the way? A helpful homophobe?
Sounds like the actuary would oppose or support the marriage itself, not the type of marriage, and base his conclusion on variables independent of spousal gender. Presumably, Mr. Insurance would reach the same conclusion if he approached the situation gender-blind. Doesn't sound like homophobia, just good ol' fashioned bean-counting, right?