| Cobretti2 said: well same sex marriage still hasn't past in Aus. The main reason being is that religious groups don't want the word marriage used. SO I guess you are right to some degree. To me this issue has gone on too long fucking come up with a new word and let both groups be happy. |
I've been saying for years that we should just call it "Civil Unions"... and use that word for ALL instances of legally-recognised unions. Replace all instances of "marriage" in all of our laws with "civil union", etc. Let the religions have "marriage", make "civil union" the secular term.
Hopefully, if Rudd can't convince the religious people who take issue with the use of the word "marriage" to accept same sex marriage, then hopefully he'll take this approach, and destroy that argument.
Mind you, the groups saying "calling it marriage means you're changing the definition, and we don't like that!" won't accept civil unions for all, either - their issue has always been recognition of homosexuality, as it is seen as "sinful". The "changing the definition" argument is just spin, so that rather than preventing gay marriage being "religion imposing itself on government", it becomes "government imposing itself on religion" by changing the definition. With the term changed, all that changes is the ability of religious people to spin it.
