Happy 4th anniversary for UK gay couples

[almostwitty]

From the Pink News:

"The Civil Partnerships Act 2004 gave gay couples all the rights and benefits available to straight married couples.

There are two differences. One is that a civil partnership is formed when the second of the two parties signs the partnership papers, while a marriage happens when the partners exchange spoken words and sign the register."

I'm wondering whether, if you took out the religious element about gay marriages and had gay partnerships instead (with all the other full rights and responsibilities etc.), the gay marriage debate in the US would be a lot less heated, and more likely to pass...

Comments

[tearingpassion.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't. Because we don't think that there should be a difference between a straight marriage and a gay marriage. Why should straight couples get a "marriage" while gay couples only get a "partnership"? Yes, the benefits may be the same, but the fact that people feel the need to differentiate (sp?) between the two is annoying and honestly just not right. They've tried the whole "civil union" thing here and it just doesn't go over well.

So no matter what happens, someone isn't going to be happy. I'm just happy to live in a state that has allowed gay marriage in its entirety. :)

[far-gone.livejournal.com]

I think there's actually a different starting point in Europe, which has made it all a lot easier. *Everyone* has a civil union that is separate from the religious marriage. So even if you have a "chuch wedding" they stop the service here for your priest-cum-civil servant to serve you the papers, as it were. So from a legal point of view everyone gets the same thing (as I understand it) and from a religous point of view, you fend for yourself.

[madmosh-uk.livejournal.com]

I don't think it would make any difference as the small-minded bigots involved aren't interested in terminology and so forth. They're interested in making "gayness" out to be wrong. By giving people any kind of rights pertaining to their homosexuality they'd be legitimising it.

Don't forget, folks - if you ignore a problem (like people with "gay"), it'll just go away.

[almostwitty]

So how come our small-minded bigots didn't stop gay partnerships forming?

[madmosh-uk.livejournal.com]

I guess there's still some kind of public push for it that ha to be acknowledged. But I just don't think that taking religion or religious language out of the equation will help matters.

I do, however, think that if gay people can have "partnerships" then straights should also. Interested in the outcome of that couple from down south who're putting that through the courts at the moment.

[grahamwest.livejournal.com]

Because British politics isn't so fundamentally about money, because they don't have as much access to money and other political resources anyway, and because they are a smaller percentage of the population.

[twisted-times.livejournal.com]

Because British small-minded bigots aren't as small-minded, petty, fundamentally ultra-conservative Christian, massively vocal and as relentlessly funded as the US bigots are.

[trialia]

Not a big difference. I would still be pissed off. If and when I ever get married, I want it to be in my own damn chapel, which welcomes and performs same-sex blessing ceremonies for civil partnerships at present, but isn't legally allowed to perform "marriage" ceremonies for same-sex couples.

[almostwitty]

Can't a registrar just come in and register a civil partnership, as it would do (kinda) for straight couples?

To be fair, I'm not particularly religiously inclined...

[trialia]

Unfortunately, no. There has to be a civil ceremony at the register office, separately...

[almostwitty]

That makes no sense at all. *befuddled*

Does that mean that civil partnerships can only be performed in registry offices? Because marriages seem to be able to be performed anywhere that has a license...

[trialia]

Basically, a civil partnership ceremony is not legally allowed to have any religious content. Not even if your faith allows and welcomes and would bless same-sex marriages, like mine.

Newington Green Unitarian Church has actually decided not to perform heterosexual wedding ceremonies until the ban is lifted, you can see the BBC article about it here (and if you want to ask any questions, I would refer you to @apakula on Twitter, I'm sure Andy would be happy to talk about it).

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

^^^^^ best userpic ever

[grahamwest.livejournal.com]

It would not cool down at all, for two reasons.

Separate but equal is not equal, and that would really be separate-but-not-quite-equal because 'marriage' is baked into a bunch of law and 'gay partnerships' would have to special-case all of those. It's a giant hack, so to speak.

Also, the people really pushing this genuinely want gay people to have less rights than straight people. Some of them want gay people to be locked up (Mike Huckabee is in this group although he doesn't talk about it much) and a very few even want them to be executed. Those people will not accept any compromise.

[(Anonymous)]

I still think that in the eyes of the US government everything should be a partnership... marriage is between each person and their deity of choice.

Shari

[theanatomist.livejournal.com]

On a side note, there are now teh straights who want a civil partnership too and not just a civil registry do like they are entitled to do.

As for America, it will never happen. Religious nuts are a cash cow no politician can turn it's back on.

[almostwitty]

Well, yeah. Civil partnerships are certainly more flexible and cheaper.

Bloody gays, they get everything and I get a wrinkled grape for Xmas ;)

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

If I married anyone, of whatever gender, I would do it as a civil partnership and not a marriage.

But I'm venomously opposed to any religious involvement in matters of law and think no religious organisations should be licensed to perform legal weddings (they should bless the union, as minority religions in the UK do if a couple of that faith wants a 'church wedding').

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

The religious scum are determined to make it about religion. They won't let it not be. It's a major plank of their rabble-rousing.

[almostwitty]

So take out the word 'wedding', replace with 'partnership' and voila, it's not about religion, surely?

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

Then you're attacking the religious foundation of marriage, don't you see? :(

[almostwitty]

Not if it's not called marriage ;)

But then, using logic to defeat religious fundamentalists doesn't quite work, to be fair...

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

Your point is my point. *glum nose-pick*