Aielyn said:
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. |
That is pretty much how I feel, as I don't think you can piss off one group in order to please another. This also applies on how we all get taxed based on how hard you worked but that is a long debate not needed for this thread lol.
However knowing Australia we will do everything to please the vocal minority jut like all the political correctness gone mad in all our nursery rhymes etc
