Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha
The point of the civil union nonsense was to establish a lesser, second-class-citizen solution for gay couples that wanted the legal and social benefits of a government marriage.
What we're talking about here is a single equitable solution for everyone, regardless of sexual preference, number of partners, etc. Just like today, and unlike the civil union nonsense, there would still be only one first-class tier of marriage.
I'm trying to translate your post to a statement of your policy preference. I'm probably getting it wrong, though. Can you help with this:
"Because legal marriage establishes kinship, which in turn underpins civil society; and because committed monogamy is so prevalent, legal marriage should probably be reserved for couples (of any sexual orientation). It should not be extended to larger groups of arbitrary size and composition. Nor should it be stripped of the profound social gravitas currently associated with what would otherwise be just another kind of business contract."
Is that anywhere close to what you think should be the policy?