The idea of a different institution is intriguing. For a long time I have been a proponent of the old French system, civil and religious marriage being separate. In Napoleonic France, civil marriage involved the signing of a very detailed contract listing the parties' responsiblities, both domestic and financial. The religious ceremony was separate. It wouldn't be hard to institute that here,and it would probably shut up a lot of these religious zealots, since their kind of religious marriage would be "gay-free".... but then again, I know gay people who are having religious ceremonies without the benefit of civil marriage and many straights who have been married at City Hall without a church ceremony. I guess you'll never please everyone.
I especially liked your comment about how we need to protect out ability to care for each other. That's under attack for straight people too, in many cases.
Thanks. I don't know that civil marriage would fly in the States, since what seems to get a lot of people het up (har-har) is the use of the word itself for gay relationships. I kind of like the bill that Montana was considering last month, partially because I'm not sure what who gets off with whom has to do with power of attorney.
In any case, I'll second your last statement: whatever gay advocates do is going to cause a backlash from some people, but the cause as a whole would advance much better if it were more frequently presented as how best gays can live and work as members of the broader society.
I especially liked your comment about how we need to protect out ability to care for each other. That's under attack for straight people too, in many cases.
In any case, I'll second your last statement: whatever gay advocates do is going to cause a backlash from some people, but the cause as a whole would advance much better if it were more frequently presented as how best gays can live and work as members of the broader society.