>>Why would anyone want identical legal protections going under two
>>different names, one for heterosexual couples and one for
>>homosexual couples?
>>What benefit could one possibly derive from this circumstance?
>
>The point is to make one lesser than the other. Bill can't seem to
>accept that.
I accept that this is how it is perceived. Objectively of course if "marriage" and "civil union" had the same legal status then which is "lesser" would be entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Anyway, I'm clear now. The the legal status of civil unions is actually irrelevant. The fight is over a label. Those opposed to gay marriage I already knew were irrationally determined to preserve the label exclusively for heterosexual couples. I see now that the other side of the debate is just as irrationally fixated on having that word to describe homosexual couples.
Marriage is better than not marriage. Couples who are not "married" are looked down on and this is apparently fine. Both sides agree that this is the way it should be. They are all bigots.
A pox on both their houses.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell tas