The more I reflect upon the practice of society allowing gay "civil unions" but not "marriages"—the latter term being reserved for heterosexual couples who wed, the argument goes, as God intended—the more I wonder why those who insist upon the distinction stop there.
What about the children of gay couples? (And yes, they have children, sometimes, just like heterosexual people do.) I'm surprised we don't hear the argument that saying these children are "born" somehow undermines the value of heterosexual couples giving birth to their children. Does it not cast a pall over their joyous event, touched as it is with religious significance? How much longer will they allow gays to press their agenda by claiming their children are "born" when of course, by entering the world as part of these lesser civil unions, they could easily be relegated to a similarly lesser state?
Perhaps mainstream America would be happier if couples that can form unions but not marry would have children that are "birthed," or "whelped" or "emerge." Instead of a "birth certificate" the couples could be issued a "document of existence."
Sure, we naysayers might point out that doing so would cause discomfort for the affected children, who, when asked where they were born, would have to answer, "Well, I wasn't technically 'born,' but I 'came into existence' in Evanston.'' But since opposition to gay marriage considers neither the feelings of children nor the concerns of their gay parents, it's a little late to start caring about them now.