To find myself suddenly struggling to welcome gay marriage?

[grovel]

My initial reaction was "fine". As I think about it, I become rather sad that we are losing a distinctive quality in the meaning of marriage - namely that it celebrates how men and women complement each other (not only for purposes of procreation).

In every way I want equal recognition of partnerships be they straight or gay. Why then am I sad about changing the meaning of a word?

[Kytti]

I kinda agree with the others in that marriage is a contract between two people to love, care for and look after each other and all that other good stuff. I understand in some way what you mean about the change, (NO! DON'T HUNT ME DOWN!) but it's just change. Some of us were brought up in a time when being gay was sadly illegal, you're simply reflecting on how things have changed. I think.

The marriage, relationship and love between two people is what is important. No matter who they are.

[jidelgin]

I am sure there is a UK equivalent of this list (see below) somewhere.
godlesscommie.com/?p=566
my personal fave "the sanctity of the Britney Spears 55 hour just for fun marriage" laugh laugh !
Don't be gaycist - let me put a ring on it!

[Anniegetyourgun]

Oh, further to my late-night comment, it occurred to me that there used to be definitions of what people weren't allowed to do with each other, so all they have to do is adopt that and say right, when they've done this they've consummated! But really, the whole thing is a red herring nowadays. Marriages are relatively easy to dissolve once they have irretrievably broken down, and if one partner's saying "we never did it" while the other's saying "oh yes we did", that in itself is proof their relationship is not exactly rock solid. There really is no need to go down the route of "if you did (or failed to do) this you can say the marriage never happened, whilst if you did (or didn't do) that it did happen but you can now end it". It's quite unnecessarily intrusive. I don't know whether a court of law goes into much detail of who put what where and whether they waggled it about or not when deciding to annul marriages between men and women these days, but if they do, it's time they stopped.

So when you get one of those hotels like the one which wouldn't allow gay guests because it insisted on "married couples only", presumably they'd need to watch a couple at it so they can be sure they did the right things to make them really married and can't go and get an annulment the next day. Er, I don't see it, do you?

[CatWithKittens]

Annie - sorry I was getting a bit technical; it comes of having studied law for my sins. This post is going to be a bit off topic but perhaps I ought to send it as an act of penitence for being too legalistic! Common law is really just the same as case law - it derives from decisions made by judges in the past, sometimes a very long time ago, sometimes more recently. (Henry II sent judges out on Assize to try to bring unity of law to the whole Kingdom because until then there were fairly widespread differences of approach in different parts of the country.) Much of our basic law derives from this source - especially the law of negligence or contract. However in nearly every area of the law there is now an interaction between common law or case law, statute law made by Parliament, often now incorporating EEC law into English law. Even now though the Supreme Court, replacing the House of Lords as the highest Court in the land, still makes law, and from time to time changes it if it is felt that is necessary. For instance they changed the law which used to say that barristers could not be sued for professional negligence and the very old law which prevented husbands being accused or convicted of rape of their wives.

[CatWithKittens]

Pressed the return button too son. I was going to add that the whole process of the development of common law can lead to considerable uncertainty during that development, especially in the early stages. That is true of compensation for psychiatric injury at the moment. I would have thought that to have such uncertainty as to whether or not a marriage was voidable or not was not very satisfactory and that Parliament will either have to abolish nullity as a concept and alter the law so that unconsummated marriages are still marriages or define consummation for same sex marriages. In either case it will be changing marriage, some will say for the better, some will say not, but change there will have to be.

[GreatUncleEddie]

BUt there already is equality in the eyes of the law.. Civil partnership gives exactly the same rights in relation to divorce, adoption, inheritance, tax.

Marriage in the heterosexual sense has to be consummated by PIV sex, no one knows how consummation and annulment will work in a gay marriage where obviously there will be no PIV sex. I don't understand why we have to pretend the relationships are the same when they physically aren't, and the emotional commitment is already equally recognised.

[trockodile]

So hands up all these people who have had someone round to check whether your marriage has been consummated? It is not really that relevant or a reason to deny equality.

Civil partnership does not give all the same rights as marriage particularly in terms of international recognition.

[trockodile]

Would also like to add that if people have a death bed marriage (for example) and (presumably) cannot have PIV, no one goes around saying that they weren't married and demanding annulments.

[CatWithKittens]

I fear some poster are missing my point - probably my fault. Those in favour of the proposed change are saying that marriage for heterosexuals will not be changed by the proposals. I am saying that either it will have to be changed or same-sex marriage will still not be subject to the same legal considerations as hetero-sexual marriage. Of course nobody actually comes and checks on consummation but non-consummation of a hetero-sexual marriage leaves it open to annulment; will there be an equivalent rule for same-sex marriage? If so, what will the rule be? If not there will certainly be unequal and different principles applying depending on the type of marriage but, in the detail, the rules will obviously have to be different anyway. Rules designed for what happens in this area between husband and wife clearly cannot apply between to wives or two husbands or whatever term is to be applied to those in same- sex marriages.

[Devora]

Our laws are full of historical anomalies, most of which we are happy to leave undisturbed till they become problematic - then we get rid of them. Doubtless that will happen with the consumnation issue.

It keeps being raised in these threads and I don't understand why - it is completely trivial - feels like grasping at straws to prove that gays can't really be married in the full sense.

[CatWithKittens]

Devora - That is not the point. It is not whether or not we can put up with historic anomalies or whether the law can be changed to permit same sex marriage but whether that change will actually create the level playing field that is being claimed or will itself create anomalies and inequalities. all I am saying is that it is inevitable either that the law will have to be changed for hetero-sexual marriage to abolish the possibility of annulment for non-consummation or that there will still not be equality of treatment unless the law also condescends to define consummation for same-sex marriage and to give the opportunity of annulment if there is non-consummation. You may say that such inequality does not matter or is acceptable but you cannot pretend that, if it is to exist, it must tend to work against the idea that everybody is to have exactly the same legal rights and form of relationship. Equally you must recognize that if annulment for non-consummation is to be abolished that does in fact change the nature of marriage for hetero-sexuals in altering the current legal concept of marriage as a civil or Anglican ceremony which is to be followed by consummation.

[Devora]

I completely understand your point, Cat, but disagree that it is as significant as you believe. Removing the legal requirement for consummation for heterosexual marriage will make not the slightest difference to 99.9% of the population.

What it may do is provide another lever for clearer, more rational separation of church and state in marriage as in other public institutions. That is far more significant.