Ubiquitous BBC link.
Okay, initially I looked at the headline and thought "yo that's pretty shit" (except i didn't think "yo", I just said that to improve the spirit of internet camaraderie we're feeling in this thread. However then I read a bit further down.
Quote:
|
President of the High Court Family Division, Sir Mark Potter, said the civil partnership would give the couple the same rights as they would enjoy in marriage.
|
Now, I don't really have any objection to this decision. All that's effectively been done is the judicial system stating that they are going to call a "partnership" between a man and a woman a marriage and a "partnership" between two people of the same sex a civil partnership. All that's really being said is that a civil partnership and a marriage are two subsets of the same form of partnership. As long as the same rights and privileges are extended does anyone give a shit over a word?
The only problem I can foresee is somewhere down the line people get really shit and try to take away some of those rights and privileges and it's easier for them to do so with the two being legislated separately. However if people did get that shit they'd be able to unentangle the two anyways so it's really a moot point.
Threaded Mode