| Do you really think that's what this is about? Sorry, but I call fake. In many countries, you have the concept of de-facto relationships - you don't even need to be married, let alone have a civil union, and you have the same rights. So it's not like the courts couldn't do it - and in many cases have. However, this entire debate is purely one of ideology and semantics. It was never about "privileges" (whether tax, medical, or whatever), but about two different people trying to define what marriage meant. For some groups, marriage has ties to family and raising children - and human society has sort of flowed along those lines for thousands of years. Another groups says times are a changing, and we need to redefine marriage to also include homosexual relationships, which while nothing to do with families (as we know them) or creating children, are still marriages. |