iracetris saidI don't know why leadership on this issue didn't take the position of pulling government out of religion altogether by making one law about domestic partnerships (of all kinds) and leave 'marriage' where it belongs — as a christian ritual, where it actually did have a lot to do with makin' babies and asserting laughable patriarchal dominion over everything.
I suspect it was because no one pushed the issue hard enough for them to care but those days are behind us and now the issue has been finally pushed to the forefront. Yay, Suze!!! You go gurl!
Because that would have been even more difficult to sell in the earlier days - it's much more facially appealing to say, hey, equal rights under existing law. It's easier to layer us in to an existing legal institution rather than revamping the institution.
Plus, everyone who is against SSM would have been against that to the same degree. They always say, "it's about marriage, we wouldn't care if you were pushing for civil partnerships with all of the same rights and responsibilities," but when push comes to shove, they fight tooth and nail against that, too.