Tom Flynn has a good word for civil unions as opposed to marriage.
… Read the restWhat secular humanists especially liked about civil unions was that they would be a wholly new institution, conceived entirely within the domain of secular law. They’d be free of matrimony’s tangled roots as both a legal and a religious construct, and they’d be free of matrimony’s historical baggage as an institution for transferring what amounted to ownership of the bride from her father to her husband. In twenty or twenty-five years, the thinking went, a robust form of civil union would be legal for same-sex couples across the land.
What was wrong with that vision? Today, many activists view civil unions as insufficient, a second-class “gay
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)