![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
semiotic pudding
These unmarried lesbians lost their bid to get their marriage legally recognised in the UK. The government's defence was that, since the rights due to a married couple are identical to those of a civil partnership (which, note, Ruth and I cannot enter into - unless, possibly, we both claim to be gay) there can be no discrimination. Why, then, prevent them applying the label of marriage to their union?
Summary: I disagree with the decision. Having said that, if a bunch of greengrocer's went to court to get their misuse of an apostrophe legally recognised, I'd be one of the morally outraged crowd who couldn't see past the syntactical issue. Conclusion: I am a hypocrite. (But God intended that an apostrophe be used to indicate possession or an elision of letters, not a plural form, dammit.)
Summary: I disagree with the decision. Having said that, if a bunch of greengrocer's went to court to get their misuse of an apostrophe legally recognised, I'd be one of the morally outraged crowd who couldn't see past the syntactical issue. Conclusion: I am a hypocrite. (But God intended that an apostrophe be used to indicate possession or an elision of letters, not a plural form, dammit.)