My point is, noticing a difference, and designing laws to grant rights on those differences are two very different things.<quoted text>
Yes they do....babies can't change themselves.
Religion? Even fundamentalist Mormons? Muslims..... hmmmmm...what do they have in common....what practice....
Shoot for the moon.
Perhaps..... or perhaps those who oppose redefing legal marriage will be vindicated by history. Opponent s of "no fault divorce" are one such example. Sounded great in theory, not in reality. We are paying the price today. Certain institutions are tampered with at our own peril
No fault divorce is a fact, "irreconcilable difference" is a nice catch- all that allows any individual a divorce if desired.
What price are we paying? I agree with no-fault divorce. But then marriage is a contract, a promise, and contracts are broken, as are some promises.
we are not talking form a religious perspective here, as there are many religions here, including none at all, but from a legal perspective.
Yes there are consequences to breaking a contract, who everyone that has been through a divorce knows very well.
But as a society we are better off for it, wives of men who abuse them are no longer without an avenue of escape, those who remain married do so because it is their desire to do so.
I personally think we are much better off than before.
But before you respond, realized that I dont consider the number of divorces a problem, the goal is NOT to keep people married, but for people who are married stay that way because they have a good marriage. I do not think wedding rings should be forged into a ball and chain