posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
purplerabbits at 11:46am on 30/06/2003
purplerabbits at 11:46am on 30/06/2003Well it's certainly odd to see Peter Tatchell call something heterophobic. Admittedly this is because like me he's opposed to legal marriage - go Peter Tatchell!
"It is a pity the government has opted for an unimaginative, watered down version of marriage, instead of having the foresight to devise an entirely new, modern legal framework for partnership recognition." He said here.
Now I'm not sure if I'm in favour of a 'modern legal framework for partnership recognition' either, but it would be more likely to get my vote if it acted more like a regular contract and less like marriage (which you can't guarantee being able to get out of by mutual consent and which the government can change the rules of after you've entered into it.) Of course, a system which allows for multiple partnerships etc would be even more appealing, but I honestly have no idea how hard that would be in practice.
"It is a pity the government has opted for an unimaginative, watered down version of marriage, instead of having the foresight to devise an entirely new, modern legal framework for partnership recognition." He said here.
Now I'm not sure if I'm in favour of a 'modern legal framework for partnership recognition' either, but it would be more likely to get my vote if it acted more like a regular contract and less like marriage (which you can't guarantee being able to get out of by mutual consent and which the government can change the rules of after you've entered into it.) Of course, a system which allows for multiple partnerships etc would be even more appealing, but I honestly have no idea how hard that would be in practice.
quixotic
There are 3 comments on this entry.