I commented into the Guardian paste up of an article:
When the State legislates 'marriage' - that 'marriage' becomes a matter of state legislature.
So the state 'marriage' is in fact a civil partnership status called 'marriage'.
The expropriation of living relational participations and indeed freedoms - by the state - are its controls in the name of 'fairness' or evenness.
When the law is made into a weapon for private or elitist agenda - it is no longer the Law - but the demand of 'Caesar' regardless what system is apparently in place.
"The other two judges effectively said ministers can have longer to review the situation."
What is the missing phrase here - 'be allowed'?
I feel the patriarchal issue irrelevant. If same sex couples are free to obtain legal rights and protections in civil partnership - why not ANY couple? What exactly is to lose here? Is the institution of marriage being used as a weapon of social engineering? Where are journalists in these times?
The idea of controlling people is never recognized to be the basis for creating more disorder in ever more complex forms - leading to bankruptcy and exhaustion. Or is it?
- - -
Further to the above, The Guardian ran an article - of 'reader opinions' but no comments open beneath titled:
"Should heterosexual couples be allowed to enter civil partnerships?"Please pause to notice the way this is framed. Do you pick up when language is manipulatively framed?
What reason is there for denying civil partnership status under the law to consenting adults?
Who decides that heterosexual partnerships should not be allowed access to the same rights as extended homosexual partnerships? Apparently, two out of three judges.
Social engineering operates a kind of mind-control in many ways and on various levels.
I appreciate the recognition and support for relationships of commitment and yet assigning these - and all else - to the State - is a false religion.