U.K. Official: Yes to Gay Marriage by next general election

[metta]

U.K. Official: Yes to Gay Marriage by next general election

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/07/19/UK_Official_Yes_to_Gay_Marriage/

YEAH!! I hope that is true...I have dual citizenship with the UK.

 

[sd1989]

Ohh im getting a civil partnership next month, and to be honest the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are liars, so this is not official.

 

[ChickenGuy]

Bear in mind, however, that this is from Simon Hughes, who, as new deputy leader of the Lib Dems, is seen as the leader of the 'anti-coalition' wing of that party, and the thorn in Nick Clegg's side. He also has no ministerial position, so he does not speak for the government.

Put that together with the fact that he's gay or bisexual himself (can't remember which) and that he's seen as being to the left in his own party, and I think his claims must be taken as his own opinions only.

As for the U.K. - sorry metta, but I'm really not that concerned about gay marriage in this country.

Civil partnerships are all I would personally ever accept or want.

 

[unloadonme]

...... I'm really not that concerned about gay marriage in this country. Civil partnerships are all I would personally ever accept or want.

Can anyone tell us what the additional benefits would actually be of gay marriage over civil partnerships? I doubt the government is proposing legislation to force churches to marry gay couples whether they like it or not, so it's unlikely to be the religious dimension.

 

[Nomenclature]

Can anyone tell us what the additional benefits would actually be of gay marriage over civil partnerships? .

They both have exactly the same legal benefits. The difference is that many gays feel that "civil partnership" is creating a "gay people are second-class citizens" thing, and that it would somehow make people hate us. Gay people want to have exactly the same rights as straight people, and to them, that would include getting "married".


Personally, i'd also be fine with civil a union/partnership.

 

[unloadonme]

They both have exactly the same legal benefits. The difference is that many gays feel that "civil partnership" is creating a "gay people are second-class citizens" thing, and that it would somehow make people hate us. Gay people want to have exactly the same rights as straight people, and to them, that would include getting "married".

Personally, i'd also be fine with civil a union/partnership.

So it's just semantics. If we're arguing over two different terms for exactly the same thing, what's the point?

 

[winterknight]

It is partly the religious dimension. I don't think anyone is going to force churches to perform gay marriages, but as the law currently stands the 'legal' part of the CP cannot contain any religious component even if the couple in question would want one - there was an article in the Times the last week about a couple of lesbians who wanted a Jewish wedding, but due to the restrictions they had to wait for the civil registrar to leave the building before the Rabbi they'd persuaded to perform the blessing was even allowed to open his mouth to speak. A straight couple would have gotten to do the whole thing in one go, and that creates an inequality

Personally, I'm in favour of going down the French route and making separate civil and religious components the law even for straight weddings, but I doubt that'll happen.

 

[James EL]

Personally, I'm in favour of going down the French route and making separate civil and religious components the law even for straight weddings, but I doubt that'll happen.

This is similar to my view. The legal part that confers all the rights and benefits should be the Civil Partnership. This is made in a registry office and is the same for straight and gays.

If straight people then want to get married they head for the church.

I know it doesn't solve all the problems but at least things would be a bit clearer and fairer.

 

[asadoyayunta]

deleted....sorry misread previous post

 

[asadoyayunta]

So it's just semantics. If we're arguing over two different terms for exactly the same thing, what's the point?

It is not just semantics. The law has created a completely different legal structure for gay partnerships, mainly to satisfy the opposition from religious groups.

Even if a gay couple could find a church willing to "marry" them, that ceremony would not not have the same legal status as a straight wedding. That is not equality.

 

[James EL]

Even if a gay couple could find a church willing to "marry" them, that ceremony would not not have the same legal status as a straight wedding. That is not equality.

The only thing that could be done would be to strip the church of their power to make the legal contract between two people. That's not going to happen any time soon though.

I think gradually people will start to use "married" for both straights and gays (I'm hearing it more and more). I still wouldn't be equal under the law but if I'm equal in my neighbours' eyes I'm not sure I'm bothered.

 

[reaunl]

Interestingly, before gay marriage was introduced in 2000 in The Netherlands, civil partnerships had been possible for a number of years (can't remember since when though).

Turns out civil partnerships are now also extremely popular among straight people...... to be able to divorce without having to go to court

The law is such that you can "downgrade" your marriage to a civil partnership without court intervention and you can then annul the civil partnership without court intervention. A lot of rational grown up adults who feel their relationship is at an end but still treat each other with respect do it this way.

Funny in a way, isn't it...