that's what happens when countries pass marriage equality laws: straight marriage goes up, as ordinary people (I surmise) find marriage now more relevant to them, because it's evolved to be more in touch with its society, more inclusive.

That's true for me (in theory, at least; in practice I have no interest in tying the knot). I'm constantly surprised that people are still opting for marriage in NZ, now that CUs are available. Why wouldn't you go for the non-discriminatory option, given the choice?

I guess most people don't even think about it. But I think the real reason is the answer to why "separate but equal" isn't enough: the connotations aren't equal.

*delurks*

Re the Huckerbee interview: I absolutely disagree that "marriage" means what they say it means, but pretending for a moment they're right: what would change if the word changed? Is it a case of, "My marriage wouldn't mean what I thought it meant"? Given that the people "defending" marriage are constantly deferring to a higher power (in this case, the dictionary), perhaps a broadening of the definition would make them, as married people, feel that they were part of an institution that no longer had relevance to them? Would they have married in the first place if same sex couples could have done it?

Which leads to the Britney Spears argument. (In case it's not obvious, I'm having a hard time understanding, let alone empathising with the bigots.)

I wonder what they'd do if their God came down and said, "You're misrepresenting me. Any union between consenting adults is groovy. Party on." I can't help feeling that they're so invested in their positions, they'd either ignore Him or argue.

I do think that getting the state out of the marriage business altogether would be seen by people who take the institutional aspects (way too) seriously as "undermining marriage", though. Marriage equality seems more achievable.