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

[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.