Richard Worth has proposed changing the definition of civil unions to include non-intimate relationships, to distance them from marriage. This is quite an interesting tactical move.
I wonder whether intimacy is legally required for civil unions or indeed marriage? In fact I’d suggest after a few years many marriages are very non-intimate (well with each other anyway).
What I find very amusing is that I have often hassled a friend of mine, whose place I often visit, that once civil unions are passed I can claim half his wine and dvd collection as a de facto civil union partner, based on the amount of time I spend visiting.
Of course neither of us are gay which would make my claim difficult to win, but if Richard Worth’s amendment does get passed, it may actually help me win the precious wine cellar.