Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. (Wiki)
This has always been my understanding of the consequences of the the 2005 law.
Due to poor reporting, I am at a loss to understand what the hell is currently going on in Parliament at the moment.
There seem to be a move to extend civil partnerships to (herero) married couples, AND extend marriage to same sex couples.
But as the rights granted are identical- is this not just a semantic argument?
I’ve heard incoherent babble from Tory politicians claiming that the Bill is against equality and others claiming it is in support of equality.
Others claim this is a slippery slope - to WHAT???
If you have been following this more than me, and know what it is about, can you please let me know.
I’m confused.
If you don’t know that don’t guess, I can do that for myself.
It’s a bunch of old people in there who are literally arguing over what the law should say about who fucks who and what kind of incentives people are going to have for fucking this person instead of that person…or something.
Civil partnership and Marriage differ in three important respects:
The name: to some, the fact they have different names is itself indicative of inequality
Status: Civil partnership is merely a legal affair. It doesn’t have religious or traditional connotations. Some gay people (bizarrely) are religious and want a full, religious marriage in the eyes of God. Others just want to use the words ‘we are married’ and ‘my husband’.
International recognition: Civil partnerships are not recognized by many countries, which means certain things such as visa laws can be a pain in the ass for gay people (and not in an enjoyable way).
There is also a second debate going on about whether the bill should extend ‘civil partnerships’ to straight couples. Labour say this amendment is about total equality, the Cons are saying its an attempt to delay the bill (basically to delay it until they might be in power so that they get all the credit for it). In truth, both are probably true.
And as Smears says, its mainly a debate between old people, because in Western societies homophobes basically come in two varieties: elderly people and religious nuts, and we have far fewer of the second kind of homophobe in Britain. That’s why even though I’m a gay man who would very much like to get married to his partner one day, I’m not that worried about the bill. Even if it didn’t go through (it will, anyway) it would go through eventually, once a few more of the crusty old politicians retire and get replaced by younger ones.
#1 is an ok argument. #3 is a killer argument, and totally wins the debate.
#2 is silly, though. If a religion doesn’t respect gay marriages, then…it doesn’t respect gay marriages. Forcing religions to do things against their religion…is that really what we want?
A gay man and his partner walk up to a Catholic priest.
‘I want to get married in your church, to him’ says the gay man.
‘Our church doesn’t support gay marriage, as we don’t believe God approves of it’ says the priest.
‘Oh,’ says the gay man, ‘well I’ll just get the state to come and force you to do it then.’ Cops come and hold a gun to the priests head, so he marries them
Does that really make it any more legitimate in a religious sense? I don’t see the purpose of bringing religion into it. It makes it a farce. The priest is just being forced at gunpoint to pretend like he’s doing a religiously valid ceremony, so the gay couple can pretend like God recognizes their marriage according to that religion that explicitly doesn’t recognize their marriage.
So, because of your argument #3, yes, call it ‘marriage’ and because of argument #1, yes, change their names.
But, because of the complete lack of any reasonable source for argument #2, don’t demand that religions who disapprove of gay marriages perform gay marriages. Call it marriage, but leave religions out of it. Not unless they want to support it.
The bill doesn’t force any religion to do anything, it simply allows churches which are willing to marry gay people to do so (apart from it specifically bans gay marriages in the Anglican Church, for slightly technical reasons, but that’s not an issue as it would never have happened anyway).
It seems to me that what is actually happening here is that YOUNG politicians notably David Cameron is trying to appeal the the mid ground in politics agains the instincts of his right wing party to ensure his future.
In doing so he is diverting attention from his fascist austerity package, whilst appealing to the liberal middle-class.
But in fact what is is doing is only to re-iterate what the Labour party already did 8 years ago, and trying to claim this as his own victory.
Number 3 is not argument at all. The UK cannot impose rights for its citizens on other countries, no more than Iran can impose Sharia in the UK.
Number 2 seems to be the only significant argument, as a “civil partnership” has no value in the church; “marriage” does.
However, as no church can be forced to provide a ceremony for Gays, then it seems like the most stupid and time-wasting legislation ever.
This is what leads me to think that it is a massive diversionary tactic designed to take attention of the litany of penny-pinching cruel cuts against the elderly and the disabled.
It’s a demand by the EU, the EU have demanded that no sexuality should be denied rights that others have. I don’t think it’s really doing anything but complying to these EU directives, and Cameron can make out he is in favour of this but I doubt he is going to pay more than lip service to the demands of the EU to keep them quiet, which is the real motivation. I don’t think there’s any hidden agenda. That said we all know the Conservatives are a bunch of self serving rich funding, poor stealing bar stewards, their government will either understand that there is only so much the working class will take or they will end up in Margaret Thatcher Territory again. Rioting, wholesale disregard for power from the people and that is not what I think they want to do. Personally I think all 3 parties are a bunch of self serving idiots, with little regard for the people they serve. But then democracy only ensures you get what you deserve, people should just all stop voting all together, none of this poorest turn out in history shit (clearly some people are still prepared to vote for these assholes) just don’t vote for any of them any more. It’s a far stronger protest by passively saying we are fed up with the whole backbiting, idiotic nonsense that is now government than anything heretofore tried. Will it happen no, but not voting for a turd sandwhich over a douchebag or a simpering turd douchebag is at least warranted now. I think the British public have had it up to here with the bad government of the last 50 years, I think something needs to change. And that something probably will not. The powerful hold on to the reigns of power so tight that no one can oust them without cutting off their limbs so they can no longer do so. And no I am not talking about some libertarian Atlas Shrugging nonsense, that is unreal, but one must hope at some point a government or potential government will reflect its voters, otherwise what is the point of democracy at all…?
Many countries, world over, recognize gay marriages from other countries, even when those countries don’t issue gay marriages themselves (the U.K. is currently one of those countries).
Actually, many churches/pastors want to marry gays. If the law is passed, then there will be plenty of places offering gay weddings and a great deal of gay people (both men and women) will get married, which is what they want to do.
Do you actually want information, or was this more a ‘this is all stupid, isn’t it?’ kinda thread?
Many countries, world over, recognize gay marriages from other countries, even when those countries don’t issue gay marriages themselves (the U.K. is currently one of those countries).
/quote]
The UK already has civil partnerships. Before that it soundly rejected all ‘marriages’ between gays.
Check your facts, or cite your references.
Yes, but that does not help if the vicar in your parish is not pro-gay.
I doubt there are that many willing to offer the service more than already exit in non established churches already, which are precious few.
Sorry, but you’ve pissed me off a bit because you clearly had an agenda here which you deliberately hid under the guise of ‘wanting to find out information’. All of a sudden, you;re an expert with a strong opinion on the matter.
For visa purposes, the UK recognizes gay marriages formed abroad as equal to hetero ones. This is a fact, and one you can easily verify with a simple google search. I don’t have time to reference every assertion I make.
I don’t want to debate the gay marriage bill because I don’t care what homophobes think. I am not of the opinion that everybody’s opinion is equal. Otherwise, I will leave you and here to continue your grumbling.
The bill, or one like it, will pass sooner or later. If you care to learn more about the bill (or any bill), try parliament.co.uk .
The UK did not recognise gay marriage before 2004. Married gays settling in the UK did not benefit from the tax benefits as other marriages.
Visa requirements do not involve any privileges .
Please note that this is a moderated Forum and you have attempted to inflame the discussion with two unwarranted and untrue assertions.
That I was not interested in the facts.
That I am a homophobe.
Neither is true.
Behave yourself please.
If you can’t be balanced then please do not contribute to my thread.
If you genuinely feel “pissed off”, maybe it is because you have made assertions that I have show to be wrong, maybe it is because I am wrong. But until you present an argument or evidence that answers that question in a rational way, I do not feel under any further obligation to address the issue with you.
Yeah I know, that’s why I said that the UK is currently one of the countries which does not issue gay marriages, but which recognizes those formed abroad. Yeah I know, the word ‘currently’ is a really difficult concept to grasp, but it involves a time which is very similar to the time and date which is showing on your watch, i.e. sometime in May 2013, not Pre-2004.
I didn’t say you were a homophobe. There currently is no debate going on, because no one has said that they are actually against the bill. There’s been a fair bit of grumbling, but no active stances taken. What I said was, I only came here to answer your basic questions, not to get into defending relevant positions, because I don’t think its an interesting debate.
For anyone still interested I just watched BBC Question Time in Northern Ireland.
It seems that, as gay marriage has not been passed in NI, it seems that gay marriages from England going to NI will be downgraded to a “civil partnership”.
When Dimbleby asked the panel what the difference would be - no one seems to be able to tell him.
The relevant point that seem to emerge was that the definition was about “civil marriage” as no church is urged or compelled to offer the service.