To answer my own questions, I think your point in comments: "The idea is that by conflating the sacramental and contractual aspects of 'marriage' we force the adoption of some 'one size fits all' definition that is guaranteed to offend somebody."
Is what's interesting here - still, I think the problem is that most will still involve both church and state in their unions (if for no other reason than a vague sense of tradition), and the conflating will be permanent and inescapable. As it stands today, while there may be limits, homosexuals can form *many* of the same covenants between each other as a matter of contract law - perhaps not all state/federal benefits will be recognized, but the contractual aspects (division of property, shared debts/obligations, etc) are already doable. My personal belief here is that it will be easier to get that last few percent and permanently reverse Prop 8 somewhere down the line than it will be to overhaul the idea of marriage itself. _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
