Oh, it's so confusing!
Marriage neutering advocates have been saying that there is NO DIFFERENCE between brideless couples, groomless couples, and bride+groom couples, and demanding equal treatment for all three.
However, British policymakers are wrestling with how brideless or groomless marriages would be legally consummated, since that still matters in British law.
Since it's all about "equality" why not leave the consummation requirements exactly as they've always been... hmmmmmmm? Wouldn't that be equal treatment?
Marriage neutering advocates have been saying that there is NO DIFFERENCE between brideless couples, groomless couples, and bride+groom couples, and demanding equal treatment for all three.
However, British policymakers are wrestling with how brideless or groomless marriages would be legally consummated, since that still matters in British law.
Since it's all about "equality" why not leave the consummation requirements exactly as they've always been... hmmmmmmm? Wouldn't that be equal treatment?
You are incorrect, Mr. Walrus - and perhaps a bit dishonest. The marriage debate does not rest on the idea that there is NO DIFFERENCE between opposite-sex (MF) and same-sex (MM, FF) couples, as you would have it. In fact, the entire discussion is ABOUT those differences, and whether or not they are fair, reasonable, legal and constitutional justifications for unequal treatment of those couples under the law.
ReplyDeleteAs legislative bodies (or courts) contemplate these differences, and find substantial similarity between couples MF, MM and FF, they may determine that the differences do not provide a justification for unequal treatment. That would be a recognition that the consummation requirement is part of the mechanism perpetuating inequality. And if its all about equality, as you write, then such a mechanism would need to be changed.
If these are different kinds of associations, then it is entirely Constitutional to treat them differently.
DeleteWhere do you find that in the constitution?
Delete