(no title)
WBrentWilliams | 1 year ago
1. Rhetorical. They _want_ to be _married_.
2. In many places in the world, a "domestic partnership" is not recognized by everyone and requires quite a bit more legal paperwork (and associated fees) than a simple marriage license and filing. (In the US, typically $2000-$20,000+ vs $20).
3. A simple demand for recognition. By being _married_, there is a legal recognition that a "domestic partnership" lacks.
nikolay|1 year ago
[deleted]
beej71|1 year ago
It's like saying, "Two black people can't get married like two white people can; they can become domestic partners, though!" That notion is offensively unjust to a lot of people.
josephwegner|1 year ago
While it is correct that marriage has traditionally been a union of people of two different sexes, I think the root of the issue is that is not how many people perceive the tradition in reality. I, along with many people, view marriage as a union between _two people_ - regardless of gender. The fact that marriage has mostly always been across sexes is a side effect of centuries of homophobia/heteronormativity.
So saying that marriage is meant for a man and a woman does not compute for me. Trying to enforce that is _taking away_ from my concept of marriage.
dragonwriter|1 year ago
Its a legal institution and separate institutions in law are inherently unequal.
jjulius|1 year ago
What is it about such a change that you are opposed to? Why can't we question traditions and be comfortable with redefining them to better-fit shifting social norms as time marches on?
8note|1 year ago
The best thing would be to legally annul all marriages and make people apply for domestic partnerships if they want rights similar to what marriages give today like hospital visitation
mcphage|1 year ago
Right. For instance, you don't want gay people to be able to get married, and that doesn't make any sense.