Equal civil marriage consultation

How abhorrent to be made to marry two people that you believe to be committing a sin?

No one is proposing that this should happen. You know that.

some religions DO want to marry gay people though. And they can't. That's discrimination surely.

KRITIQ No in law gay people are treated if in civil partnerships as the same as the married.

In religions, they are not. But, hey ho, religions have rights, too. They don't want to marry gay people and that is their choice. How abhorrent to be made to marry two people that you believe to be committing a sin?

I can't see that it is in any way acceptable to have ANY distinction between the legally sanctioned partnership / wedding of a same sex couple and a different sex couple. they need to be CALLED the same thing and have exactly the same terms and conditions.

IMO the whole proposal has been modelled in the wrong way and still lines the heterosexual version up alongside the religious wedding, leaving the Civil Parthership alone as the gay option.

If you are a straight person, then you are in the position of privilege to choose either a civil marriage or a marriage within the context of your chosen faith. If you are in a same sex relationship, you have only the choice of a civil partnership. No matter how you try to contort the language to say it makes no difference, no matter if you insist that legally it's pretty well the same so what's the problem, no matter what emotive language you use to condemn those who say that a civil partnership is not sufficient for how they wish to recognise and have their relationship recognised, it doesn't change the fact that in law, gay couples are treated differently from straight couples.

It is gay men and Lesbians who are calling for a change in the law, alongside the faith groups that want to have the opportunity to treat their straight and gay members the same, but aren't allowed to. It's also of course supported by straight people who believe in equality, fairness and justice.

There's something that doesn't sit right with me about a straight person and person who doesn't profess a faith saying they know what's best for Lesbians and gay men and for faith communities. It's an issue as a straight person you Wamster, nor I will ever have to deal with. I don't believe we are entitled to make pronouncements about something that affects the lives of gay men and Lesbians but not us. Do you really feel so entitled yourself?

I suppose my stance is this:

To me, marriage is a legal contract and what the couple make of it is up to them as a couple-as with any relationship.
If cp's provide same rights, there is no need for further government input.

I also find the idea that society will treat married gay people differently as opposed to civilly-partnered ones to be misguided. It won't-if you're non-homophobic, you're not going to care. If you are well, would it matter what (place offensive word that homophobes use here) do?

LeeCoakley, sorry, I don't think the name being a mouthful is good enough reason to change things.

It's possible to be against gay marriage and be a non-homophobic atheist-as I am. Not everybody against gay marriage is a homophobic, religious type

Bit of a mouthful though Wamster.

I've been married to X for 10 years.
I've been civilly-partnered to X for 10 years.

When did you get married?
When did you get civilly-partnered?

etc.

so, care taken not to offend religions is ok, while care need not be taken not to offend gays? the state may claim to treat the two the same, but if gay people are the same as straight, why are different names needed?

I don't understand your objection, warmster, is it purely on the basis that this isn't something you deem necessary for gay people, and therefore the cost in parliamentary time outweighs whatever benefits gay people perceive from being equal in name?

fwiw, one consequence of the current situation is that whenever I fill out an insurance application, for example, I have to out myself by ticking cp, which might be fine if I knew the person dealing with me wasn't homophobic, but that is never guaranteed.

I disagree, Grimma, because:
a, Do we as a society really care about marriage (full stop) anymore? Cohabitation is completely acceptable nowadays.

b, People understand that cp's are a commitment akin to marriage, anyway.

If you're non-homophobic, you won't care about marital status. If people are homophobic, the issue of gay people 'taking' over one of their institutions is going to make them dislike homosexuality anymore.

Also, civilly-partnered or married, the state will give same treatment
The state will; but people in general are less likely to while the name is different.

They didn't have the same name because care was taken not to offend the religious. I think marriage may have a negative history, and cp's? I'm not sure yet of their history, but, all the same, if the issue is about people not liking the history well I think that is all well and good but not enough to warrant parliamentary time.

There really has to come a time when people must realise that how their relationships are conducted is down to THEM and not their marital status.

Also, civilly-partnered or married, the state will give same treatment.

'piss off and grow up' sounds about right wamster

what sab said. names matter. the two may confer the same rights, but they are clearly not the same, or they would have the same name! I wouldn't have created a separate entity and would have preferred everyone just had the chance to marry. but now cps exist, both marriage and cp should be open to everyone on the grounds of equality. the two have different histories (herstories?, see names matter in feminism) and it may be that some couples prefer one to another because of this.

I'm sorry, sunshineandbooks, while I agree that names are important, I don't think that it's important enough to use parlimentary time on.
I signed all the petitions I could to bring in civil partnerships, because I felt there was genuine unfairness. Now, though, I'm like: 'meh', because it's up to people to define their relationships in a way that suits them.

Alice , I hate to agree with the catholic church on anything but I am anti-gay marriage, too, but for entirely different reasons.

Because it matters to them, they care about it, and want to make the world a better place.

Why do you spend your time knocking them instead?

So you don't think it makes a difference, others do. Whoop-de-do. If there were not difference between the terms, why would the church be kicking up a fuss? Their whole protest is about how marriage has a particular meaning that encompasses hetrosexuality and reproduction. There's a whole bunch of other baggage that goes with marriage being associated with the church.

Were it a campaign to shoot puppies, or pull out kittens claws, I'd think you have a point. But it isn't.

I think the name is important. Names and language matter. If they didn't, why would people insist on being called Mrs or Ms? After all, you're still the same person with the same marital status. People make a choice about how they portray themselves to the rest of the world. What they call their relationship is part of that.

I mean how pathetic must a person be that they behave in a different way because they are married as opposed to civilly-partnered?

The best thing the government do is tell people to piss off and grow up. CP's offer same rights as marriage and the rest of it is up to the couple to decide for themselves like adult human beings.

Why should anybody want to start a campaign for it?
A quick trip down the register office with a few witnesses in a pair of jeans (as I did) is all it takes for a civil marriage which give same rights as a civil partnership.

Why the fuss about what to call a relationship, anyway?
Would my relationship with my dh be any different if I were 'civilly-partnered' with him and not 'married'? Of course it would not be.

People conduct their relationships the way that they do not because of their marital status.

It may not be as long as the history of marriage but it's hardly 'yet to be written' . It started the moment it was created.

If they fall into traditional gender roles, then they'll be a heck of a lot of lawns being mown in some civil partnerships, and a heck of a lot of ironing being done in others. Maybe there could be some kind of exchange programme.

So there aren't any plans. Maybe someone could start a campaign about it then. Maybe promote the idea to a wider audience online or something. Oh wait...

sunshineandbooks. I disagree. Sorry but I do. Just because people have a dislike of the name of something isn't good enough reason to change things.
If the rights are the same, they're the same and that is what matters. Don't get me wrong, if cp's didn't exist, I would be absolutely for a legal structure available to gay people akin to marriage, but they do exist so I think: why bother?

Alice the history of civil partnerships is yet to be written. My guess is that people will fall into traditional gender roles as with marriage.

In any case, there are absolutely no plans to make cp's available to heterosexuals. None whatsoever.

Done, thank you for the link.

Of course there's a difference. They have a whole different history and thus a different meaning.

Julie Bindel was on PM earlier talking about this.

Even if there is no difference between a CP and marriage other than the name, isn't that a reason in itself? Branding and image is important. Why else would companies spend thousands - sometimes millions - on overhauling their image and taking on a new name even when the product they are promoting is mostly unchanged.

I think the consultation is a good idea. If a lot of people are rejecting marriage because of it's historical context but actually like the idea of a legally committed relationship and would take up a CP if available, then that's a good enough reason to do it IMO. It will be interesting to see the results of the consultation, and I hope enough people participate in it to make it worthwhile.

Thanks for the link. Blu, if you've not got through to the last page you can add commentst there.