As I understood it, the court is essentially saying there needs to be a civil union (though they might not call it that) option akin to what a lot of countries passed before gay marriage got enough public support. And it is usually easier to go from civil union to full equality in marriage, because you can point to those relationships and say "hey, they basically have marriage in all but name already and it is hurting no one".
TomReneth t1_j9o600z wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in A South Korean court says same-sex partners should get government benefits by Alex09464367
As I understood it, the court is essentially saying there needs to be a civil union (though they might not call it that) option akin to what a lot of countries passed before gay marriage got enough public support. And it is usually easier to go from civil union to full equality in marriage, because you can point to those relationships and say "hey, they basically have marriage in all but name already and it is hurting no one".