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?

All right, just read the previous bunch of posts...

Dopische. I don't think even you can actually be saying this but you appear to be accusing gay people of snatching babies from fuck knows where and then claiming to be their parents.

Given exactly how ludicrous that sounds, can you please clarify your statement?

If a man (or woman) raises a child, that child is theirs, and nobody can say differently. Parenting is more than biology, it's being there, loving them, the little things we all do day-to-day. If a gay couple have a child, they are both parents, and should go on the birth certificate as such.

Either extend the term "marriage" to include gay couples, or scrap the term completely. That's equality.

If I'm getting irritated at anyone, it's those who are not checking their facts.

Churches will not be expected to marry anyone they don't want to.

This whole issue is about secular, civil marriages performed by the state. We have a fairly robust policy in this country of treating everyone equally in the eyes of the law. Our government is supposed to be gender, colour & sexuality blind. It's therefore completely unjustifiable for there to be one rule for gay couples and another for straight.

People may be right about Cameron using this as an "issue", I don't know. But I don't care either. The fact is he's RIGHT to push through a law change, whatever his motivation.

And, sorry, but "let's not upset the status quo" is nowhere near a good enough reason to deny one group of people in our society the rights enjoyed by another. I would hope that we're better than that here.

I'm not accusing anybody of any such thing at all. Pure bullshit on your part, Empress, only stating the bleedin' obvious that it cannot be assumed that a baby is the child of a gay couple in the same way it is with heterosexual people.

dopishe, 'natural methods and 'being a parent' aren't the same thing!

You don't seem to get this.

Many people don't have children by 'natural methods'. Are you saying this should be banned?

If not, then your point about 'natural methods' is totally irrelevant homophobic bollocks, isn't it?

Why is it assumed in a heterosexual couple though? - just because it could be true, doesn't mean that it is true.

It is infuriating me too, its infuriating that in this day and age its still being debated at all.

It doesn't make one jot of difference to my life if other couples get married, live together or date. The point is it makes a difference to them .

As for your views on parenthood being based on assumption and possibilities ......

Lord Carey is mad.

Hand on my heart I just dont know why this is even an issue. Marriage is between two people. If those two people happen to be religious then that marriage also involves God.

If people truly believe in god then surly God made gay people in the same way he made everyone.

Two consenting adults of any gender should be able to marry however they chose. Given all the crap in the world how is this even considered a debate?

It would be impossible for anyone not to assume DD was DW's, first since there were plenty of witnesses around when she gave birth to her, second nowadays because nowadays she's practically a carbon copy. And I'm legally her parent because DW, as the biological parent, gave me that right and I have parented her for ten years. For most lesbian couples at least, that will be a given.

As for bullshit, by saying that gay people need to provide proof of parenthood you're implying that gay people might make false claims to be parents. Do I have that correct?

It's assumed with a heterosexual married couple because they've made a vow of commitment which involves a sexual element.
Now I dare say that I believe that gay people are capable of similar commitment-very much so- however, with the greatest will in the world it can never be assumed any child that one of the females gives birth to is the product of a sexual union as it is with heterosexual couples for reasons which blatantly obvious. So even if gay marriage did come in, extra procedural elements would have to be followed.

No, it isn't dopishe.

It's assumed (legally) because women used to be men's property.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

No you don't have it correct at all.

BOTH heterosexuals and homosexual people are capable of making false claims about parenthood, however, the registrar who is registering the birth of a child can say, hand on heart, that if a heterosexual turn up to register the birth of a child saying that they are parents and signing a declaration form to that effect, that she believed them and had no reason to doubt.

It's blatantly absolutely f*** ludicrous to suggest that she could follow same procedure with gay people without there being further back-up evidence e.g. adoption papers, IVF treatment proof etc.

LRD who cares if I am right and you are wrong? Irrelevant. What matters is that it is THERE in law.

But registrars are not required to put their hands on their heards and make statements about doubt, are they?

How is that relevant?

Well, quite a lot of people care, obviously.

You are incorrect about why the law is the way it is. I think maybe we can accept the law is not rooted in the best traditions of egalitarian practice, is it?

So I would be happy to see it got rid of.

Is society there to serve the law or is there law there to serve society?

I have told two registrars (one of them twice) that the baby I am registering is not my husband's but they were still required to register the babies as his (and mine), that's the law so I guess it must be correct but it certainly didn't feel it.

They have a duty to ensure-as far as possible- that the information they take in is correct, yes they do.

I wholeheartedly agree with gay couples adopting, however, for the sake of the child, procedures should be followed to make sure as far as possible that the child has been adopted via proper channels.

Otherwise, two gay people could just go register a child as their's and next thing you know an angry man starts claiming parenthood.

Yes, this could happen with straight people, too, but everything the law can possible do to prevent this has been done.

Well clearly, as OddBoots has just told you, they don't have a duty to ensure as far as possible that the information they take in is correct.

They follow the rules, even when they know that in doing this they are giving incorrect information (like the example where they are registering a man and woman as the parents of a child where there is no biological connection - I'm assuming surrogacy).

The rules can be changed to make more sense. That would seem sensible, and not hard.

Laws change. That is what we are discussing.

I am aware registrars have a duty to check the info is correct, but they do not have a duty to fanny around sleuthing into whether a woman has cheated on her husband, and I really doubt they give a toss. It's not because of that that babies born to a married couple are assumed to belong to both, so it's not relevant.

'Otherwise, two gay people could just go register a child as their's and next thing you know an angry man starts claiming parenthood.'

Yeah, cos I'm sure no-one ever makes legal arrangements with sperm donors, right? And it would be totally impossible to do that.

The law doesn't remotely try to prevent the same happening with straight people - that's the basis of your argument FFS! You've admitted the law actively makes it less easy for women like odd to register the actual biological parents of her child.

I believe that the proportion of children of married couples who are not biologically related to the father / husband is very high.

Assumptions are either useless as a basis for law, or should be applied equally to all.

Am I right in thinking that if a woman marries her child does not need to be adopted by her DH, but becomes a child of the family? Or some law of that sort? Surely that is the precedent which is, or should be, applied to same-sex parents?

Straight DP and I are not married - when DS was born we were supposed to get a paerntal ersponsibility form signed for DP, but i think that has now been supplanted by the father being named on the birth certificate? maybe the birth certificate should be adjusted to include both mothers / fathers who have parental responsibility?

You keep talking about IVF treatment proof. Plenty of us don't have IVF. DW didn't.

The only proof the registrar is going to have that a man, married or not, is a baby's father is what they're told or what's put on the statutory declaration form. So you're going on reasonable doubt that they're telling the truth.

It's going to be quite obvious that a gay partner isn't a biological parent, yes. But I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to fill in a statutory declaration form stating that we have parental status and then having the rights and responsibilities that stem from that.

As for being there in law.... it's also illegal to eat mince pies on Christmas Day or stick postage stamps on upside down.

I married my DC's father, after DC had been born and registered in both our names. I was then asked to re-register her under the 1976 Legitimacy Act as she was no longer illegitimate. This in the late 1990s.

There is no end the the insanity of the law even in modern times.

And as for the angry man claiming parenthood, isn't the paternity row more or less a Jeremy Kyle script that usually involves three straight people? I'm not saying arrangements with sperm donors never go wrong. But there's normally a LOT of careful planning and agreement involved.