As time goes on, it seems a number of people are finally conceding to the idea that gays should be allowed to have equal legal rights regarding partnerships as heterosexual couples. This is definitely a step forward from the (unfortunately, still prevalent) dark age idea that homosexual relationships simply do not work, are unnatural, or are damaging to families. It is argued that gays do not honour commitment in relationships, yet everywhere I look, I see gay couples who have been together 12, 20, 40 years. Sure, there are plenty of gays who have “one nighters” or short term relationships, but how is that *any* different in the heterosexual population? If the public perception indicates that gays do not have long-term relationships, it is only because that same public is hostile enough that it either drives apart those relationships or forces them out of the public view.
Even with the progress which has been made in this arena, we still have a number of bigots insisting that, even with full equal rights, we assign a name such as “domestic partnership” or something equally ridiculous to a legally-bound homosexual relationship. The argument is that marriage is a traditional institution between a man and a woman, and usually this argument is accompanied by a phrase such as: “. . .and I’ll be damned if these f**king neo-liberals corrupt the word to fit their agenda!”
These same bigots would likely have said, a number of years ago: “sure, women should have equal say in electing officials, but traditionally, voting is a relationship between a man and his government. When a woman does it, it needs to have a different name.”
I won’t even go into the fact that historically, marriage didn’t just refer to a union between a man and a woman, but that this union was also restricted to people of the same race, religion, and social class. I’m sure there is a “perfectly rational” justification why marriage between a same-sex couple is not okay, whereas marriage between a Buddhist and a Jew is, right?
A cursory glance at history will show that the policy of “separate but not equal” simply doesn’t work. Why are we treating marriage like it is a magical exception to this rule?