Mixed sex option. . .

All couples in England and Wales will now be able to choose to have a civil partnership rather than marriage, according to PM Theresa May.  This was designed to give mixed-sex (dontcha just love that avoidance of heterosexual) couples and their families the same option already open to same sex couples.  It provides more security to the couple without imposing the restrictions of marriage.  The status of civil partnership was created there in 2004 to give same-sex couples some legal status when marriage was not available to them.  It does offer similar legal and financial protections as marriage does but without the cultural, religious, and historical baggage of marriage.  When the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 legalized same-sex marriage in England and Wales and following year in Scotland, same sex couples had two options for defining a legal status for their relationship but this was not available to mixed-sex couples.

Statistics count some 3.3 million co-habiting couples in the UK -- many of them thinking that they are already in common law marriage that implies similar rights and protections to those enjoyed by married couples and civil partners.  The problem is that common law marriage does not provide these rights and protections.  What is the difference?  Many are rejecting marriage because they want to define and formalize their relationship in their own way -- without the cultural, religious, and historical background they see in marriage.

So how long will it be before the same happens here in the US?  Who knows?!  What is rather ironic is that the same-sex couples fought so hard for something that now it appears mixed-sex couples are not so sure they want?  Oh, well, this is what some call progress. 

In the end it is rather confusing.  It would seem that the thing that these couples do not want is simply the term -- marriage.  They want everything else -- all legal rights and privileges, every supposed tax advantage, and the security and protection for their relationship. . . just not the term that describes this -- marriage.  We are living in an age of redefinition; marriage means what you want it to mean and not what culture, religion, or history says it means.  So why the big deal?  Could it be that this is one way in which those couples who have chosen not to marriage, get marriage without having to admit that there was something wrong with their co-habitation?  In other words, a cover for their choice that turned out not to have all that they wanted from it.  And the legal community seems inclined to give the redefinition fervor its freedom to change whatever people think needs changing -- from gender to marriage and everything in between.

Maybe it is just me but I cannot help but think of Eden and Adam and Eve and how the first place where sin showed itself was sex.  Perhaps this is the natural outcome of Eden, of man turned in upon himself (oh, excuse me, or herself) and intent upon casting off every shackle of the Creator's will and purpose -- even if it is merely a semantics issue.  We are witnesses to a time when truly everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes and calling it good, even very good.