Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

squngy t1_ir6h4hv wrote

I feel like a nuance has been missed here, which is probably my fault.

Legally, there was a distinction between a "union" and "marriage" and that was not right and it is good that they can "marry" now, but even before, most people in casual conversation would consider the people in a union to be married.

If you met 2 people in a union they would almost certainly introduce them selves as husbands or wives.

There was effectively already same sex marriage, except in legalise and some articles didn't make a distinction, for example

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-slovenia-rights-idUSKBN1630U0

You can read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Slovenia

2

Miltrivd t1_ir88vf8 wrote

People do get it, but having restrictions and a different legal name makes it not the same, these things are known to everyone and creates segmentation, even if by a little. Equalizing name and rights officializes acceptance and nullifies legal differences, this helps further normalization making the homophobic reactions more fringe given they are against something that's official, normal, established.

It's not like people think gay couples were actively shunned and this will magically change things overnight, but as it had happened everywhere else where marriages rights get normalized, it also helps normalizing acceptance even further.

1