To think that this is just a silly reaction on behalf of gay people?

[Jesssime]

Don't misunderstand me, I support gay people having full access to same rights as opposite sex people. Always have done. As somebody has somebody close to me who is gay, I like to keep abreast of gay news.

But I don't know, isn't the following just a bit over the top:

I mean, Yes, I'm totally fine with same sex marriage, but I'm not going to take to the streets and party over it. I'm guessing that it's not that big a deal to the majority of us-this doesn't mean that anybody's against it at all, but that it really IS no big deal. So why are they expecting the news channels to give it much coverage?

www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/19/whitehall-questions-why-equal-marriage-was-largely-ignored-by-bbc-channel-4-and-other-media/

the fact he was assassinated only proves his points further really. Which is probably not what they wanted!

It would have been a news story had it not been for civil partnerships.

But everybody I know who knows people in cp's refers to them as husband and wife, anyway. In fact, the other day, a friend of mine introduced her friend's partner as: ' This is Mike, and this is his husband, Dave'.

All that's changed is the nomenclature. Although I do believe that there are still some differences between straight and same sex marriage.

My grandfather was gay and married my grandmother because until the 1960s homosexuality was still an inprisonable offence. He did not father either of the children this marriage produced, and they lived cordially together for the sake of public appearance. He was lucky to have met someone as free thinking and open minded as my grandmother in the 40s, otherwise he would have been forced to repress his sexuality until he died. Now, only FIFTY YEARS later you can be married, legally, to someone of the same sex. Isn't that brilliant? My friend was one of the first people in the UK to have a civil partnership but because it wasn't recognised as a legally binding marriage it affected everything from joint insurance to mortgages. There's a lot more to this than it being a civil partnership under a different guise. A lot more.

CPs are not the same as Marriages. Similar but not the same. And they don't hold the same reverence for many people. So it is a big story.

Especially as it's considered 'truly' equal for a lot of people, whereas CPs were seen as a consolation for many.

A Civil partnership is not a marriage,they are not the same in law, its not just a name change.
maybe they refer to each other as husband and wife because its easier than saying This is my Civil Partner.

it is big news - it's a fundamental change in the law that caused massive division in parliament - and it is a huge step forward in the continuing battle for equality and acceptance

I am not bigoted - I did a happy dance and felt it deserved much more coverage

I am sure gay people the world over thank you for your support

But jesssime it is also the fact they now have the equal right to get married if they choose that is big news. Not the fact they can get married if that makes sense.

Cps arnt the same thing has marriage really.

This is a huge step in equality and that is the big news, for me anyway.

I don't view marriage as being brilliant full stop. BustyDeLaGhetto. The divorce rates support my view that an awful lot of people don't either.

Why should I pretend that it is brilliant for gay people to get married when, clearly, it ain't that good a thing for straight people?

In fact, to ignore the evidence that it is bad for straight people yet somehow miracalously great for gay people is inverse homophobia as in: gay people will be so much better at it.

Equal marriage should be granted, that goes without saying, really, as gay people pay taxes and contribute to society just as straight people do.

But why should anybody else feel the issue to be worthy of headline news?

because its about discrimination!

Inverse homophobia as in far from thinking that gay people are inferior that they are somehow superior to straight people.

And what gives you the right to dictate what other people do and say? You don't seem to see the contradiction in your argument.

And it's not even fully equal btw, there are some areas eg pensions were gay couples are still not treated the same as straight ones.

It's good because of free choice

I think your argument is misguided at best, it is newsworthy as it is a major piece of statute being changed.

It doesn't matter how you react to the news. It's the fact that this IS news and has barely been reported.

But I'm not dictating at all, TurnipIsTaken, the people who are complaining about lack of coverage are the dictators.

I'm merely reacting to the fact that they think they can dictate what appears in the news.

Sounds like Jess you want to have them keep it behind closed doors

It's a major change in fundamental rights in society, for a long marginalised and abused people. Of course its news

Really? Superior? It's bigger news because it's a breakthrough, not because they're better than straight people

You are completely missing the point!

The big news and importance of this law being passed is the huge step in equality and acceptance. Not the fact they can now be married. That's what the bottom line is anyway.

it's not about if marriage works either...it's about the fact they were denied it until now.

You don't need to have a party or even care but to begrudge them and their supporters for doing so is unreasonable.

But you are. You are saying they shouldn't make such a fuss, stop being silly etc. That is telling other people what they should do.

If the BBC didn't cover Nelson Mandela's death do you think no-one should accuse them of being racist, just accept they can choose what to cover?

it should've appeared in the news because it was news. Big news. No one's dictating that because it is a fact. It just didn't happen and people are wondering why.

And jesssimes don't ask if you are being unreasonable, if you are not prepared to be told that yes you are being unreasonable.

TheOrchardKeeper, clearly you think gay people are going to make a better go at marriage than straight people, otherwise you'd just say that equality is good but let's not ignore the evidence that marriage -as we know it today- is not working too well as an institution full stop. Quietly hopeful at best. Not demanding that everybody shares the good news.

Put it this way, I fully support the right of group A to jump into a swamp of crocodiles as group B have been doing for years.

That doesn't mean to say that I think there's a lot to be said for jumping into a swamp of crocodiles.

I don't but thanks for telling me what I think...

And it's not about the swamp but the right to jump in too (what a ridiculous analogy though, plenty of people do make marriages work and want the right to them).

"Alivolapropiis, so why are a small group of gay people now in effect demanding that people make out that their right to marriage is headline news AND say how marvellous it is to boot?

The right to it has been achieved. Nobody seems to have started riots against it. That should be good enough."

That is amazing. Not in a good way.

You're suggesting that gay people should be happy because all of this has passed by without fuss and be happy that there have been no shows of protest. That should do. Disgusting attitude.

You seem to be confused about civil partnerships being equal and same as marriage. It is not. I'm sure Mike or Dave can tell you more on this.

That is because you are missing the point. It is about the state saying, we respect your rights to exist, not ooooh you are better than us and will do so well at marriage.