Um, but gay marriage does exist in this country. We just call it civil partnership. I wish we didn't have the naming difference because in terms of rights under the law they are identical, but I can hope that in another generation or two society will have moved on some more and we can avoid the duplication.
Tony & I got married because what we wanted was covered by the standard marriage contract (in particular next-of-kin rights for each other and any children). I'm happy that pretty much every official form I fill in seems to have done a cut+paste s/spouse/civil partner/ which allows a lot more people access to the same contract.
I also think that having a default contract (marriage/civil partnership) acts as a useful model to those who want to draw up their own contract. I believe that between them, marriage and civil partnership cover the majority of long-term relationships people want to protect in law; I'm sympathetic to e.g. poly relationships that aren't covered, but I'm a big fan of the 80/20 principle: have something that works for most people rather than have nothing because you can't make something that works for everyone.
no subject
Tony & I got married because what we wanted was covered by the standard marriage contract (in particular next-of-kin rights for each other and any children). I'm happy that pretty much every official form I fill in seems to have done a cut+paste s/spouse/civil partner/ which allows a lot more people access to the same contract.
I also think that having a default contract (marriage/civil partnership) acts as a useful model to those who want to draw up their own contract. I believe that between them, marriage and civil partnership cover the majority of long-term relationships people want to protect in law; I'm sympathetic to e.g. poly relationships that aren't covered, but I'm a big fan of the 80/20 principle: have something that works for most people rather than have nothing because you can't make something that works for everyone.