S'pose what I'm getting at is that, although the issue may not matter to one personally, and one may even object to or reject the institution as such, that doesn't mean that the obvious disparity should not be changed for the sake both of a principle of equality (i.e. not excluding certain citizens from access to an institution others, in this case, take for granted), and also for those that want to be married, who want to make that choice, which they currently do not have.
J
On 12/05/2012, at 1:36 PM, Jill Jones wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Sure, the terminology. But it's still enshrined in law and, therefore, needs to be challenged on that basis, is what I'm saying. I'm sure, indeed I know, that plenty straight people aren't interested in marriage, as it's defined either in law, common social mores, or certainly religions. That's fine, we all get that.
>
> Equality in law, of course, doesn't always translate into practice. But if it's possible to change, extend, redefine a legal category, which in this case it is, such has been done in, ooh, let's say Spain, Canada, Iceland, Argentina, South Africa, Sweden and the rest, why not here?
>
> Cheers,
> Jill
>
> On 11/05/2012, at 10:47 PM, Andrew Burke wrote:
>
>> Yes, Jill, I see that. And I don't mean to be cynical - I just don't see
>> the use of the terminology to be useful anymore.
>>
>> Lawrence, I don't tell people not to marry. I don't tell people to do
>> anything, really - except social controls like drive on the left, stop at
>> red traffic lights, don't drink and drive, etc. But even these change from
>> jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
>>
>> Just talking, really. Marriage is such a can full of worms. Yes, we should
>> treat people equally - but when's that happened in history on any level -
>> social, financial, politically. I'm no expert on Europe's rules at all, so
>> is there any society today where the citizens are close to equal? None in
>> Aisa, for sure.
>>
>> As some Hollywood star used to say, *I loves youse all!* I like to believe
>> poets are equal ...
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 11 May 2012 20:59, Jill Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> So far as I'm concerned, it's about having the choice. You can chose or
>>> not. But if you don't have access to the same choices as other citizens do
>>> then you are not being treated equally. That's the point of all this.
>>> Surely.
>>>
>>> I have been married too. I may or may not wish to go there again. It's
>>> fine to be cynical but that's not the point. It is about having the choice,
>>> as all heterosexual citizens do and non-heteros don't, in Australia.
>>>
>>> It is a political act, potentially.
>>>
>>> J
>>>
|