James Miller this morning tosses his two cents in this homosexual marriage, and Sullivan picked up on it this morning as well. No shock that Miller is against it and that Sullivan is for it, (Being homosexual)

Miller compares marriage and civil unions as brand names. Says he:

Brand name analysis proves that civil unions for gay couples can’t fully substitute for marriage. If you started a fast-food restaurant, it would be easier to call your place McDonald’s than to use some new unknown brand name. Sure, in time you could build up this new brand to become as locally well-respected as McDonald’s name, but for the near future at least, you’re better off going with the existing brand.

Sullivan reponds:

Miller says the critical question is whether expanding marriage to include gays will “dilute” the brand. I think it will strengthen it by making it universal.

Not so fast. Let’s extend this hypothetical a bit.

Would MacDonalds respond with your thinking, Andy, or would they file a damage suit? They would of course do the latter, pointing out that the people stealing the MacDonalds name, are trying to push their product as something it was not, and claim that doing so caused the real MacDonalds chain damage, wouldn’t they?

I’ve said it before; on most things he gets it right.  But his reason leaves him when this subject comes up.