>To modify an old saying: > >"Why buy the cow if you can get the government to give you the milk for free?" I'm afraid I don't see your point. The complaint is that the UK government will, rather than permit actual legal same-sex marriage, permit gay couples certain privileges similar to marriage but without the formal name, which some gay spokesperson says discriminates against unmarried straight couples by not permitting them a similar legal arrangement in some way short of actual marriage. And my point is, unmarried straight couples have no such need because they can actually get married. If they choose not to, that's up to them, but at least they have the choice, which gays do not. Therefore, there is no possible "discrimination." If you want to argue that gays should be given full legal marriage rights, I agree. What the UK government is proposing is, actually, still, discrimination against _gays_ not against straights, even if it would be slightly less discriminatory than it used to be. So what is your point? Tom
A heterosexual couple who is simply cohabiting, frex, can break up and go their separate ways at any time, whereas if they are legally married, they must go through the often messy process of obtaining a legal divorce, dividing up the property, etc. OTOH, because they are not married, frex, if one becomes ill the other is not considered "family" for visiting and decision-making purposes. I don't know exactly how the proposed law is written, but is it possible it would give them all the advantages of being married without some of the disadvantages, such as long-term commitment?
--Ronn! :)
I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed that I would see the last.
--Dr. Jerry Pournelle
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
