Thanks for correcting my theology. They cannot legally be recognized. In practically every area of life, that equality has already been attained. Please forgive me for not answering sooner. As we keep compounding and changing definitions and understandings and the legal requirements, I think the impact for all of us and for us as a society will not be known for many generations.
Also, given what EGALE has already said, that they are not accepting of that either, I think it brings back my suggestion as well: a constitutional amendment is going to be required because both sides are very committed to their views. The decline in the stability of marriage and the consequent positive result for society has been much compromised in recent years.
The priest had suggested that a memorial service be chanted for his son. I have experienced homosexual thoughts and desires in the past. In fact, I think there's a certain amount of arrogance in thinking that Parliament could change that definition, given that marriage did not originate with this state or any other.
There is a significant difference between losing a spouse and then abstaining, and having been called to married life, even with a person of the same-sex, and never being allowed to marry. BeneD Like your name, btw!