Civil Partnership... in a civil society

I don't buy the indo, far too fearful of coming out the other end of it hating the civil service, but had a chance to cast a critical eye (if fact its the only eye I have) over it yesterday.
After reading David Quinns piece on the 'price' we will have to pay if we allow same sex unions I had to recheck to see if somebody had inserted a copy of the catholic voice between the covers...
I fall in and out of love with the idea of marriage, in one way we are relentlessly pressured into it by society and succumb to the charms (especially as women) of a dress that everyone will love and an excuse for a party before we are past the party stage of life.
Then I put my sensible hat on and realise I'm with him because I want to be with him, not because I want a ring (not least because the ones I want cost more than our yearly spend), or a day out as people like to term it, a day out so steeped in manic spending I wonder how anyone affords it. A cursory glance through the for sale ads in Done Deal will reassure me that girls are still spending more than they can afford on dresses but still cannot like this fine example -spell....
So if two guys want to do it, or two girls, I fail to see how it cheapens the 'sanctity' of any one elses.
Lets look at what Marriage started out as... In 1600, marriage for almost all Europeans and Europeans in America was primarily an economic arrangement negotiated between families in which family considerations of status, future economic stability, and prosperity were the most important considerations in selecting a potential spouse. As Stephanie Coontz reveals in her new book, Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, human unions have gone through a number of evolutions. We would be remiss to think that it was ever a stable institution. Instead, it has always been in flux. It has only been based on the concept of love for 200 years; before that, it was a way of ensuring economic and political stability. Wow, what a sanctified institution!

Lets also note that marriage is not sought by same sex couples in all countries, it depends to an extent on the notion of 'legitimacy' in a society, indeed its what I occasionally lapse into when I think that I or my relationship would be better for having a ring and a day out. Its about norms, and the norm in Ireland to declare 'commitment' is a wedding, whatever your religious affiliation. Quinn's piece for the indo is just declaring what many people fear, that somehow if you loosen norms the world as you know it will come crashing down around your ears.
This fear of movement from traditionalism and indeed the secularisation of society is worrying in a number of ways.
1:We are a nation in crisis, calls for a return to the days of yore has never produced solutions and only perpetrates a vicious cycle of repeated failures.
2: We are a changing nation, demographically and spiritually, our legislation should reflect inclusion not exclusion.
3: Our past is not a happy place that we should return to, immigration, oppression and poverty are never ideals, our ability to distance ourselves from past failures and over exaggerate good memories is a well documented psychological phenomenon.