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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2006-12-21 08:07 pm (UTC)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.