lizardgirl wrote:
[snip]

> 
> the hang up seems to be with the word (notion of, existing conventions 
> regarding ) 'marriage.'  the 'right' to marry doesn't seem to include 
> or exclude the 'right' to priviledges out right.  denying marriage to 
> all but hetero couples reflects a desire to hold homo and hetero 
> 'marriages' as something apart, different from one another.  why?  the 
> failing, imho, is not with the law neccessarily, but with our cultures 
> inability to embrace diversity.  using the existance of priviledges as 
> an excuse to deny a persons right to choose their life partner is a 
> poor one.

Possibly to avoid messes like this one.

In Britain gay couples are trying to get the right to adopt children.
The Catholic Church does not want to be an accessory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6311097.stm>

Side effects
"Cardinal warns of 'new morality'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6312395.stm>

Andrew Swallow
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32