But one wonders what that might be
Apparently still stinging from the one-sided beating laid by the Nexus upon Red Tory and his assorted cohorts and groupies, our good friend Red Tory has conjured this "brilliant" counterpoint.
Hoo boy. Apparently, this is what passes for a "Thinking Blogger" these days.
After all, nothing sets one apart as a "Thinking Blogger" as a blog that specializes in empty attacks on other blogs, does it?
But let's allow Red Tory an opportunity to defend himself. Either that, or allow his cohort Mentarch to do it for him, by addressing what objection he has to the passage quoted.
Does he wish to dispute whether or not marriages are legal prior to sexual consumation?
Or is there any other part of the post in question he wishes to refute?
Or, perhaps, he would like to refute the subtextual theme of the post--the idea that inventing various indistinguishable and legally ambiguous variations of marriage is diluting the institution of marriage, all in the name of ill-defined political correctness?
In many cases, "domestic partnerships" can be viewed as a form of marriage open to same-sex couples, yet forwarded as an indistinguishable alternative to marriage so as to not offend religious or social conservatives. Would Red Tory like to dispute the idea that it would be better so simply allow same-sex couples to have marriage (as has been done in Canada) while establishing new, distinct legally-recognized marital statuses (as has not been done) to meet needs not necessarily covered by marriage?
Or does he prefer empty attacks? He may feel free to respond on his blog, or respond here. Then again, knowing Red Tory, he'll likely choose not to respond at all.