Red Tory is puzzling over "That Marriage Thingee". He maintains that:
The fact of the matter is that it’s a crass means of splitting property and dividing assets and its legacy only extends a scant few hundred years back to Medieval times. There’s absolutely nothing sacred about it at all whatsoever.
I asked him:
"If marriage is indeed just a contract, and a crass means of splitting property and dividing assets, why is the term "civil union" not good enough, when it would confer the same legal advantages?"
But I already know the answer to that. It would not help the gay activists to "normalize" homosexuality in society in general, which is after all the real issue - not marriage and not human rights.
Personally, I would like to see the words "civil union" applied to all legal civil commitments rather than the word "marriage" - straight or gay or whatever. Although adoption concerns are still problematic for some folks, I believe that the 'M-word' is still the main source of friction. Perhaps we could finally put this baby to bed if we made a semantic change.
What did you just say? Words don't carry meaning? Think "Nation" and then tell me that again.
Couples could get their civil union duly recognized by whatever secular means the State defines, and then opt for a religious ceremony in their own church afterwards if that is their wish.
Why wouldn't that work? I think it would be a great compromise, and then just maybe we could get on with other things.
Let's get the nation's bedrooms out of the business of the State. Right, Pierre?
* * * *