My feed

to access all these features


In being really really REALLY pissed off at those trying to stop same-sex marriage bill going through?

267 replies

StoicButStressed · 20/05/2013 15:28


My eldest DS is gay, I genuinely have NO concept or understanding of how anyone thinks he (or the other pretty significant % of our population who also happen to have been born gay?) should in any way be denied the same right as his two brothers have to be able to get married.

AIBU? Or is there something I am simply missing?

OP posts:
CrapsWithBears · 20/05/2013 16:48
jacks365 · 20/05/2013 16:49

I'd always assumed it was all religion based until a married atheist I know said he had a problem with it and explained why.

As far as I'm concerned everyone has the right to married life irrespective of sexual orientation and the sooner the law is changed the better.

Sariah · 20/05/2013 16:51

No Ephemeralfairy I was just trying to think of something that AF could relate to :)

Cockadoodlequack · 20/05/2013 16:52

Thanks Merrow. So, for a couple getting 'hitched' Smile in a non religious setting, they would be able to choose whether it was a marriage or a cp, or would there be no difference any more?

I've been to a civil partnership ceremony which was very close to the line if indeed no mention of religion is allowed. I felt for them as they are both heavily involved with the church as were many of the guests (although not me) and would've loved to have the church recognise their commitment and celebrate in the way and with the music which comes naturally to them on these occassions (to be fair, they made up for it at the reception!)

Polyethyl · 20/05/2013 16:52

Because I do not believe the politicians' promises that the church of England will not be sued. The established church has a duty to marry people within their parish. And sometime very soon after this law is passed some gay couple will take a challenge to the European Court of human rights trying to force a church of England church to marry them - and then the promised religious exemption will not be worth the paper it is written on.

Please note - I am not talking about Roman Catholic churches or mosques or any other religion - because they do not have any legal duties to marry people.

This law leaves the church of England wide open to being taken to court - and the politicians are lying when they say the church will be legally protected.

Binkybix · 20/05/2013 16:53

Half watching the debate now. David Burrowes is such a tool.

jacks365 · 20/05/2013 16:54

Civil partnerships are same sex couples only, marriage is a man and a woman. Whether you have a religious or civil ceremony is irrelevant.

Maryz · 20/05/2013 16:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tee2072 · 20/05/2013 16:55

Are you kidding me that this isn't important?

That's like saying feminism isn't important.

It's about equality for everyone.

There is nothing more important. Without it? We can't do anything else.

cory · 20/05/2013 16:57

jacks365 Mon 20-May-13 16:32:18
"Marriage is a contract between two people, a man and a woman as defined by the state. If an employer wanted to change your employment contract you'd need to agree it. Changing the legal definition of marriage means that what all those couples agreed to no longer exists so some feel that this means "their" marriage is no longer valid."

Does that not imply that nobody should ever be able to enter a different employment contract from the one I hold because that would change the definition of my contract?

If a woman got married promising in the oldfashioned way to obey her husband, would she feel she had a right to dictate that everybody else had to get married according to the same formula because otherwise it would invalidate her marriage?

I know exactly what my marriage vows were about. Somebody else getting married in a different setting, on different terms won't change that one iota.

LadyClariceCannockMonty · 20/05/2013 16:57

'But there are many people who have got married with the understanding that marriage was between a man and a woman, and they feel that their concept of marriage been changed to something else. Whatever happens, a lot of people will be hurt.'

Does anyone seriously think that anyone who is already married, invested and settled in their marriage, and with their rights as a married couple protected by law, will feel that new legislation will change their own marriage?

'It no more changes straight marriage than so called slebs who marry on Tuesday and divorce on Wednesday. Sanctity of marriage my fucking arse.' Agree with this too.

CrapsWithBears · 20/05/2013 16:58

Why should Churches be exempt anyway? I doubt gay people are going to want get married in a Church that is homophobic, doesn't exactly make for a happy day, does it? And there are Churches that WANT to marry gay people, but now can't.

Basically we shouldn't have equality, again, because it steps on the toes of homophobes, well boo-fucking-woo.

jacks365 · 20/05/2013 16:58

Cory I don't agree with the view I was just trying to explain why some people feel it undermines their marriages.

JamieandtheMagicTorch · 20/05/2013 16:59

AFAIR civil partnerships can't be annulled on the ground of non-consummation, nor can couple split up a civil partnership on the grounds of adultery, unlike marriage

This is because "sexual intercourse" hasn't been defined, for the purposes of civil partnerships

CrapsWithBears · 20/05/2013 17:00
Binkybix · 20/05/2013 17:02

I think the Bill has been changed so churches that want to will be able to conduct gay marriages now.

JamieandtheMagicTorch · 20/05/2013 17:02


I am talking rubbish

CPs can be split up on the ground of Unreasonable behaviour, one element of which could be sexual unfaithfulness

CrapsWithBears · 20/05/2013 17:03

Binkybix so basically people are worried that gay people will want to get married in Churches that are homophobic? Hmm

ExitPursuedByABear · 20/05/2013 17:03

I don't actually give a fuck. The country is going to hell in a handcart and too much time is being wasted on this topic imo.

Merrow · 20/05/2013 17:04

Cockadoodlequack One of the debates they're having at the moment is whether to extend civil partnerships to straight couples.

So, at the moment:
If you're gay, you have a civil partnership.
If you're straight, you can have a civil or religious marriage.

I've honestly lost track of what they are trying to achieve now. I think it's civil partnerships for straight & gay, and marriage for straight & gay with opt-outs available for religious groups that wish it.

As for mentions of religion, maybe it depends on how much the registrar is willing to overlook? We have to submit copies of all the readings and songs were are planning to use in advance to make sure they are suitable. Quoting directly from the email:

"Please ensure that you do not incorporate anything of a religious nature or any religious connotations. For example, the words, "?to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part" are from the Church of England Common Book of Prayer, so therefore cannot be included in a civil ceremony as they stand."

Binkybix · 20/05/2013 17:05

Sorry - I'm not sure I understand your last post bears.

As I understand it, churches can choose either to be exempt or to conduct marriages now. By churches I mean different sects, rather than individual churches within a single denomination.

BusStopWanker · 20/05/2013 17:06

But there are many people who have got married with the understanding that marriage was between a man and a woman, and they feel that their concept of marriage been changed to something else.

Why does Joe and Jane Blogg's marriage which happened years ago have any bearing on whether Jane and Jane want to get married today? Genuine question? Confused What possible effect could 2 men getting married to each other, or 2 women getting married to each other have on a man and woman marrying each other? Whether it happened 50 years ago, 10 years ago or has yet to happen? Seriously?

MrsSparkles · 20/05/2013 17:06

Craps, I think that's an awful view. As much as gay people have the right to get married, people should also have the right to say no I don't like it. One persons views are no more valid than the next persons just because you disagree with them.

Although I support gay marriage - even in a church if the minister agrees - I would be furious if churches were forced by law to perform gay marriages.

AMR73 · 20/05/2013 17:06

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Binkybix · 20/05/2013 17:07

I think that for most the amendment re straight civil partnerships is seen as a delaying tactic for the whole Bill.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.