S
Sir Calumn
Guest
Oh yeah, dont get me wrong, it's a great thing that such a rediculous example of prejudice was broken down. It's just that, to me, subtle inequality in a supposedly equal society grates more than blatant prejudice in an unashamably prejudicial society.sportgaming said:in terms of the civil partnership act, i think that it has been gone about in completely the right way. Getting the rights is by far more important than what these rights are actually called, and the decision was not a government one, but was taken by the main campaigners, Stonewall, who decided that they would fae less opposition from the "religious" people around the country if they avoded using the term marraige, which in itself is seen as a religious act.
I am sorry to say it, as I do consider myself to be religious, and would love to say that I am married to Mark ( as it sounds so much more permanant, than civilly partnered to) and in our eyes the word marriage means more along the lines thats it's blessed by god ( there's alreadt threads around on Gay Religion so this isn;t the place to discuss in mroe dpeth) and that we were bought togetehr by him -
As most Gay men are not religious in the slightest, the fact that the act has came in means that they can get precisely what they have always wanted, and people such as Mark amd I are 1 step closer to getting what we really want.