on 2006-12-21 08:07 pm (UTC)
Well, civil unions is what we have here in NZ, and it's a great step forward, but...why should marriage be hijacked by religion, and small-minded religion at that? It started off as a purely civil arrangement, and there's no reason not to go back to that. In fact, it very often is purely civil these days - at least in NZ.

Furthermore, the term does have connotations of partnership and commitment not found elsewhere, which apply equally to believers and atheists, gays and straights. I think by settling for "separate but equal" (shades of apartheid, much?) we're doing everyone a disservice. On the one hand, there are gays who wouldn't get married if they could (like John Barrowman); on the other, there are many who would. Denying them that because it would upset a few bigots is wrong.

But, as I said, civil unions are a good first step.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

charliesmum: (Default)
charliesmum

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 123 456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 11th, 2025 04:44 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios