|
Well, separate but equal didn't work before, even though it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
I think playing the semantics game is silly, frankly. If there is no qualitative difference between the two, why do we have to call it something different just to protect some people's delicate sensibilities or try to fool ourselves into thinking there IS a qualitative difference.
However, there COULD be a qualitative difference if, say, marriage was only done by churches and civil unions were done by law. Some people could get both, if they wanted to be recongized by God or Allah or whoever AND they wanted the tangible benefits. Some people could choose to do only the church wedding and be called marriedbecause, oh I don't know, maybe they don't want the guvmint all up in their business. Some people may just do the union through a justice of the peace or deputy, because they don't care for religious recognition. But, even in this case, some gays would get married because some churches are not against gay marriage. They are apparently reading a different Bible than Coramoor.
But, if the law simply made it that hetero couples that got married were called married and homo couples that got married were called "unionized" or something, I would be embarrassed for our country, that we are fooling ourselves into thinking that we are "preserving" something when really, both groups of people are doing exactly the same thing, in churches, out of churches, on beaches, etc., but we just call it something different. Ever heard the phrase "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"?
|
Threaded Mode