http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101109/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_gay_marriage

I found this interesting. Essentially, a straight couple filed for a civil union instead of marriage and was denied.

"In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners — we don't feel like husband and wife"

So basically they aren't ****ing..? Besides, civil partners / husband and wife.. whats the difference and who gives a ****?

i believe a lot of gay folks give a ****

I'm guessing some gay couples do "****ing" as you put it. I don't know what the difference is, it probably depends on who you ask.

Well I'm all for gay marriage. Labelling it "Civil Partnership" is silly anyway.

No, that's not what it means. It means they don't feel that they fit into the stereotypical "husband and wife" relationship. Didn't you even read the article before decided to be an arrogant ass?

That would make them very much like the traditional husband and wife

ahahaha burned

I skimmed the article. But my point was even the article says they are virtually identical in law so the difference is slim to none, so why can't gay folk be "married" and everyone just get "married". I just think it's interesting they see themselves as "civil partners" and not "married" I mean it's the same thing amirite?

Maybe all marriages should be changed to "civil unions"

I can agree with that. I guess people tie Marriage and Religion together.

Their decision was based on the fact that there is a difference. If there was none, I doubt it would be an issue.

The part about marriage that I wasn't prepared for is the fact there is a woman and she LIVES IN YOUR HOUSE and she HAS NO WHERE ELSE TO GO

The fact that they believe there's a difference is a terrific example of why "civil unions" are an incomplete and inappropriate substitute for gay marriage to begin with.

The fact that this one couple believes this demonstrates the overall structural problem?

Civil Unions could easily just replace marriage in the legal realm. Marriage, in turn, could be left to the various churches or private organizations.

They didn't see a difference. They went for the civil union rather than the marriage as a protest. More power to them.

**** letting the churches keep the label. Just let fags get married. Problem solved.

It's time for the straight couples of the world to stand up against these grossly entitled "Gay Supremacist" ideals! EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!

Demonstrates the problem on its own? Certainly not. But it's a pretty striking example of the widespread belief that civil unions, while they're supposed to be equal, are nevertheless qualitatively different from marriage; less traditional, less committed, less legitimate, or just plain inferior. I don't believe this is merely an unintended consequence of using the separate label, either.



In theory, sure. But why bother? Marriage has been a civil institution in the Western world for hundreds of years. Is there any reason to change that, other than to leave religions some vestigial authority over which relationships are legitimate and which aren't?

There is none. The only reason is as a compromise to get the gay-haters to shut the **** up about it. Except, you don't compromise on human rights unless there's no other way at all. Civil unions would be a step in the right direction, and if it's the best that can be done now, then go for it. And don't stop pushing for the real deal.

Marriage should be open to everyone. Civil unions should be even more expansive. Civil unions are for your two old aunts. They like dudes, but now they are old spinsters and they live together. When Thelma breaks her hip, a civil union gives Louise power of attorney, no mess, no fuss.

I imagine a system where common-law marriage is a civil union. And since anyone can get them, 'marriage' becomes nothing more than a label thrown on top. It doesn't mean a damn thing, except that you had an entirely unnecessary ceremony. Of course, the justices and priests have a right to refuse to perform a homosexual marriage. But they are also completely separate from the civil union. The state grants the union, there is no ceremony. They go find a justice who performs homosexual ceremonies, and they have one, and they are married.

Just remember that what makes you married isn't taking a vow, or the words on a piece of paper, or the attitude the law has for you. I know a lesbian couple. The state says they aren't married, that they can't marry. But they are most definitely a married couple, and anyone who met them would agree.