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

[StoicButStressed]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22588954

^^^^^^^^^^^
THAT

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?

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.

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

Thanks Merrow. So, for a couple getting 'hitched' 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!)

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.

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

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

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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

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

Seven ways a civil partnership isn't the same as marriage, for those interested,

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

Aaah

I am talking rubbish

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

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

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.

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."

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.

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? 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?

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.

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