First, this is the post, from Nadine Carroll, that I recommended (and approved off):
Gay couples are not married in the eyes of the Church, or of most religions, but their status in the eyes of the law is the question here. I have often thought that it would be best to sidestep the question of marriage, and concentrate on the ability to legally declare another person a partner in his/her household. The relationship to this person might or might not have a sexual component; it doesn't matter. What matters is that people could legally form a household with another person and grant that person legal rights in inheritance and medical decisions that have been traditionally associated with marriage.
Many gay people, who feel strongly that they have a right to marry, will not be happy with this half-a-loaf of civil union, but I think most people in this county could get used to the idea. Particularly if you trot out some non-controversial examples, such as a pair of childless widows who've been best friends all their life, and want to look after each other in old age.
So, under the recommended scheme, your problem is taken care of. Second, there is no reason to call that "marriage"....... |
