![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Political rant
Apparently the right has their, um, undergarments in a twist over the idea of gay marriage. It's just so dumb. Though I suppose if I can make an electronic copy of a song and that counts as stealing from the person who still has the original, then for, say, Ian McKellen and his partner to get married somehow reduces the power of my cross-gender marriage. Feh, I say. If you want to defend marriage, enact the following law:
A couple who wishes to become married must allow two weeks to elapse between getting their marriage license and their wedding. At no point during this period may either of them appear on a television show that deals in any way with their marriage. That deals with attention-seeking celebrity marriages and marriage reality shows. It means it's harder to elope, too, but I don't know that that's a bad idea. I suppose I'm actually fairly conservative about the purpose of marriage, but liberal about relationships.
Perhaps I've offended somebody.that would be interesting.
A couple who wishes to become married must allow two weeks to elapse between getting their marriage license and their wedding. At no point during this period may either of them appear on a television show that deals in any way with their marriage. That deals with attention-seeking celebrity marriages and marriage reality shows. It means it's harder to elope, too, but I don't know that that's a bad idea. I suppose I'm actually fairly conservative about the purpose of marriage, but liberal about relationships.
Perhaps I've offended somebody.that would be interesting.
Re: (part 2)
No. Naturally I have no dictionary citation for it--nor do I have one for "letter bank," a term which I think Gabby wil agree also already has a meaning. For reference to the meaning of "kwyjibo," see, for instance, http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/1011/kwyjibo.htm.
As far as the fact that ["Adoption" is] a very useful word, concept, and legal distinction, my point, which I've said in other comments, is that there is no need to make a distinction in this case. Specifically there is no need to make a distinction between homo- and heterosexual lifetime commitment; whether there's a need to make a distinction between a couple's legal commitment and their religious commitment, and whether "marriage" blurs that distinction...I'm less certain on this point. I wonder, though: is there a movement among atheists to change the term "marriage" for their unions, because of religious meanings of "marriage"?