Same sex marriages and "civil unions" - a minor ramble

A friend of mine, skaly recently said in his livejournal: "..if "marriage" is such a holy institution, then make up a word that encompasses everything that marriage encompasses, but make it a gay thing. If you call it something else, you'll fool all the idiotic rednecks and religious wackos that they've won, that the sanctity of marriage has been preserved. Give the gays what they want, just call it something different. Again, this is an ideological problem. People are looking at marriage as some kind of ideal, some abstract and meaningful symbol. Look instead at the physical--the real--aspects of marriage and give the gay people what they want. If the symbol of marriage is so holy, then don't call it marriage. Call it a "partnership" or whatever. A "merger." A "union." I don't care. It's just a name."

I disagree. If "marriage" is such a holy institutions, that's all the *more* reason for gay people to want to have the right to it. "Give the gays what they want, just call it something different" is not the solution, because it's also the *name* of marriage that is desired. Civil unions are better than nothing but *neither side* considers civil union an acceptable solution, because both sides tend to see what the real issue is. The real issue is acceptance of homosexuality by society. And same-sex marriage goes hand in hand with that. And *names* are important about that.

( Read more... )

Anyway, that was just a minor ramble.