--- On Thu, 11/13/08, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> From: Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Gay marriage
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Thursday, November 13, 2008, 5:05 PM
> At 11:05 AM -0500 13/11/08, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> >> 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
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk