AIBU to be increasingly infuriated by the issue of same sex marriage with BOTH sides?

[dopishe]

The whole thing is getting on my nerves now. And I mean both sides of the debate, too. The against who are saying it will wreck society-how exactly? Those who say that it will strengthen relationships of gay people=pull the other one!
As far as I am concerned, civil partnerships and marriage provide equality of financial and legal rights and, whichever a person has, it is up to THEM to make it (relationship) work and cp's and marriage are just titles. So just leave things as they are.

I am absolutely infuriated by The tory party using this issue as pure gesture politics when they do not give a stuff about people's lives and the REALLY important issues like the economy and jobs and things that really matter.

Not saying labour wouldn't be any different, but people, does it matter enough to alter the status quo?

Sorry, I forgot to mention the lib dems-oh well, doesn't everybody?

I am probably going to be deeply unpopular here but I agree. Churches are not government institutions and therefore should be allowed to marry who they want. After all, many refuse to marry those who've been married before.

The fairest way to do it would be to call anything that takes place in a church a marriage and anything that takes place in a civil setting with a registrar a civil partnership. Regardless of sexuality.

You agree, really? . This is rant territory for me. But I am fed up to the back teeth of it. It's gesture politics at its worst; using the ONE thing that makes them seem caring as deflection.

I am also a bit fed up of the debate, and can't believe that equal rights for adults when it concerns marriage etc is even up for discussion. It's 2012, it should just be happening end of.

I believe that Cameron brought the issue up for his own image. He did a disastrous interview before the election about gay rights, which was all over youtube, and I think there's a fair chance it's his chance to recover from that.

But equal rights are provided via civil partnerships, all that is being argued about now is what to call it. I'm indifferent in that I feel strongly about what people's relationships are called either way. This indifference suggests that the logical thing to do-with the rights being the same financially and legally- is just to leave it be and further tampering is a waste of time.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that this is from the same party that is going to erode women's rights (see abortion) but, hey, that's OK because they're all for gay marriage .

I agree as well. I don't know why it is such a big debate tbh. It seems simple to me. I don't think churches should be forced to perform civil partnerships or same sex marriages, but I don't think that any marriage that takes place in anywhere other than a religious setting shouldn't be a marriage.

The problem with "leaving things as they are" is that they aren't currently equal. I think it's a no-brainer to make them equal - call it marriage whatever gender people are, and leave religious organisations to decide their own rules. But I don't think you can just say "Oh it's fine as it is" when lots of people can still say "civil partnership isn't the ame as marriage".

The two things are just titles. But while they are different titles, plenty of people are unhappy that their relationships are still labelled as something "different" just on the basis of sexuality.

No, the logical thing to do is just to call it all marriage (since that's what it is). The status quo is stupid since they were only called civil partnerships as a sop to the church.

Tbh, the simplest thing would be to go down the French route and make only civil marriage legal. Churches can then offer religious ceremonies to whomever they like as it won't really matter. After all, that's the case now for people from other faiths.

Dopishe just because you're indifferent to the terms marriage/civil partnership doesn't mean everyone is. Why have the distinction in name if as you say there isn't really one?

Having said that I too am bored of the debate and think it's a bit of a red herring.

I think you make a valid point but IMO you're missing the importance of names in validating people's place in society. Women have objected to being called "Manageress, woman PC, etc because they feel that it suggests that men are the "real" workers while they are the "extras." You could argue what a person is known as in their job is irrelevant, but in fact that's not true - people make value judgements based on names and if group A has access to the name associated with status while group B doesn't that creates a small but significant area of inequality between the groups.

Civil partnership and marriage are essentially the same thing, apart from the religious element. But to say you can get married if you're straight but not if you're gay automatically divides the groups and has the implication that a gay relationship isn't "worthy" of marriage, or isn't of the same level of status as a straight relationship. A straight marriage in a registry office is still called a marriage, which belies the idea that "marriage" is a term reserved for religious weddings. Equality should mean genuine equality - ie all groups treated in exactly the same way as far as is practical. As a woman that concept should appeal to you I think.

I think people should be allowed to marry, or civilly partner anyone they like, male or female, and have children or not have children with that person - it is also, for me, a no brainer.

I agree with Pombears - calling it a civil ceremony unless it's in a church sounds about right, for anyone - or call it what they like but stop discriminating on the grounds of single sex or man and woman. That's all.

'As a woman that concept should appeal to you I think.'

Not sure what this is about - do we have to be more up for equality than men, just because we're historically disadvantaged?

What I mean is, we should understand what half-equality feel like, the paltry concessions and the fake equality. Women have been given crumbs in the past and been told to be happy with their lot and now the same thing is happening to gay people. The least we could do is have some sympathy and not pull the "oh it doesn't matter" card on them the way it's been pulled on us in the past.

I think marriage for marriages performed outside of a religious institution and "religious marriage" regardless of whether it's a christian marriage or hindu etc

sexuality is irrelevant really.

I don't think you can really argue "I'm indifferent to this issue so nobody should consider it" - I'm indifferent to huge numbers of issues, but I know that lots of other people have strong feelings about them, so I wouldn't say "Oh just put up with the current situation, I don't see why you're even bothering". It matters to them. Ignore the debate and leave them to it if you don't care either way.

Yes I concur with that. I just think it isn't up to us as women to bang the drum for equality just because we never had it...iyswim.

sorry x posts - to CailinDana

dopishe - it's not equal between the two 'institutions'. Marriage is internationally recognised, civil partnership is not. My understanding (from a Tatchell column so I'm guessing he knows his stuff on this particular point!) is that even countries which might have same sex marriage can't treat a CP as marriage for immigration purposes etc.

Plus there are some religious institutions/celebrants who WANT to be able to marry gay people and religious gay people who want to marry in their own church/etc like everyone else.

Just because it's not life-and-death important doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking for it. Same goes for any other equality issue.

" Churches are not government institutions and therefore should be allowed to marry who they want."

But nobody's saying that churches should have to marry gay people.

Yabu. It's important for many people to be able to have the ceremony they want and to be officially married. If it was just about legal rights, then we would all just fill in a form and be done with it. Churches are not being told they have to marry gay couples against their wishes. But there are some churches who have said they want to be able to marry gay couples and at the moment they can't. Why should the other churches who are against gay marriage be allowed to dictate to the ones who are in favour of it?

'Not saying labour wouldn't be any different, but people, does it matter enough to alter the status quo?'

I'm glad people thought equality for black people, women, illegitimate offspring and children was important enough to alter the status quo over the years. Yes, equal rights DO matter. No, not allowing gay people the title of marriage or the right to marry in churches - even though some churches want to be able to do this is not true equality.

YABU.

I can get mrried in a church. I'm an atheist.

Two people who believe that marriage is something that involves God, who regularly attend their church and where the minister / vicar / insert other is happy to marry them cannot because it is illegal.

No one has suggested forcing churches (or synagogues / gurdewara / mosques) to marry people, the change would just allow them to do so if they wanted.

More to the point- why should churches be able to dictate what people who never go near a church do? Bizarre!