Grrr Radio One News - HUSBAND!!!

[FlameWithTooManyHormones]

I may () be hormonal but it is really starting to piss me off.

Stephen Gately did not have "a partner". He was married. They keep saying "His partner who he married in....".... therefore it is his HUSBAND!

Grrr.

Feels like they are lessening the relationship somehow.

Ok prof, that is interesting, I knew that the new law was so thta it could be said to objectors (eg the house of lords) that it was not really a marriage, I was not clear on what the actual differences were. It is becoming fairly clear that there are no differences really in what it means to the couple after they are married/civil partnered or whatever it is a difference in the act itself.

Also that some people see it as enough to consider themselves married and others do not - and so want things changed (which is fair enough IMO).

All of which fits with what I had thought... if people enter into a commitment to each other they should have the right to consider themselves and call themselves married/husband/wife - should they so wish. THe fact that the Law has it wrong is not enough to mean that we should all get it wrong too.
Yes the law needs changing but the key point IMO is that everyone has the right to be married regardless of their sex. the law will cathc up eventually - especially if it becomes common usage.
In a similar way that Common law happened... it used to be living in sin, then it became common law wife/husband then the law was changed to allow actual rights to common law spouses (again this process is not complete IMO).
It seems to take the law longer than the general public and this is why it is important that the general public stop all the silly "well the law says" because the law is an ass and will not change unless we make it.

Ivykate, there are no clear cut stances, as peachy has pointed out even with hetrosexual marraiges it is still quite possible to get it wrong. WRT adults getting in muddles a child who is well educated (by the parents about this particular muddle that people keep having) should not have a problem with it. I really think you are tying to find problems where there are none.

from a personal point of view we are a hetrosexual couple unmarried almost 20 years

people seem to delight in 'self correcting' themselves and saying 'husband ...whoops no partner'

it is a word

But the fact that people said "common law wife" meant that an awful lot of women (and some men) thought that it gave them some kind of legal status, and found out too late that it did nothing of the kind. If you talk as though the law says something that the law doesn't actually say then you may be shooting yourself (or lots of other people; let's assume a really big shotgun) in the foot.

That isn't directly relevant to the civil partnership question because, as you say, the legal implication of the status is (so far as I am aware) the same as that of being married. But it is relevant to a general suggestion that "well the law says" comments are silly. Being very clear about what the law says is the best way to ensure that people can protect themselves and if appropriate push for a change...

Except with all the words correctly spelled, of course.

Gopping I guess my thought is that the mroe people use the term marriage etc, then the easier it will be for the law to eventually be amde equal

I give not a shit if someone is married, partnered or swinging on alternate tuesdays... I do however care that a lifelong partnership in a gay relationship does not have the option of the same status (in many peoples eyes) as the exact same relationship in a hetero setting

Ift that amkes sense?

agree peachy

has anyone considered that gay couples may think the word 'husband' to sound a little ...dare i say 'wrong' when applied to homosexual men?

it has been used SOLEY for hetrosexual couples since - forever ....

someone should invent a new word

we need shakespeare

Hmm, I do see what you are saying prof... I think that the fact that the term common law came into increased use - indicating increased acceptance of the state of realtionship is really what enabled the laws to be changed. I don't think that all of the protesting and lobbying etc would really have had the desired effect if it was not also being demonstrated on a daily basis that this was a normal state that was accepted by the country as a, more or less, whole.

THis is why I think using the standard terms to apply to a same sex couple - assuming that is what they want, is important. By adhering to (for eg) SGs wish to be known as the husband of does that not demonstrate an acceptance of their marraige and by extension of same sex marriage in general?

I want the gov to see that people are accepting these marrages in the same way as any other marraige, I want them to see that the general public thinks same sex commitment is just as important and valid as hetrosexual commitment so us using standard terms then having the press use standard terms and so on could slowly filter through and back up the argument being presented by those who protest and lobby for equal rights...

I think...

DMnamechanger, I think I follow

lenin, possibly... the child in question was lovely and very sure of what they were taking about (no confusion on display at all - well from them - a few of the adults wigging in were looking a bit op-eyed!)

I completly agree about the terms used in the press causing distress... bad enough to lose your husband so tragically but to also have the fact that they are you husband removed for the sake of being "PC"... yes I think I would be very upset by that tbh.

GO, yes, I have considered that - which is why I keep aaying "should the couple wish to" and words to that effect. I am not talking about having it imposed on people just giving them the option like everybody else has!

I am glad kay because that has to be one of the most difficult to follow posts I have ever written

Don't you find it hard sometimes to articulate something that is more a general feeling about a situation than a thought out argument?

Mind you, I prefer 'wife' as my designation, and keep getting called 'partner' which irritates the stuffing out of me, so it doesn't just happen to gay couples.

The thing is, I wouldn't say that a view applied to yourself is homophobic anyway, it would be if applied to other people but, applied to yourself as you describe, it is just a symptom of the indoctrination we have tended to receive IMO. (which is another reason why I want to be able to say to my dc "yes that is her wife/his husband" I want it very clear to them that couples are couples, I do not want them confused by terminology into thinking one has more vailidity than another....I want my children to be indoctrinated into a more accepting and level society than the one I was presented with as a child)

I think we're stuck with homophobia as a word now, tbh, however catch-all and inaccurate it remains.

DMnamechanger, I think it's a valiant thought, but I think 'husband/wife' has been replaced by 'partner' in many places anyway.

Partner is, IMO, just the cop out that was dreamt up because people couldn't cope with the thought of having to manage more than one type of relationship norm in open society. It came about when common law became an acceptable term/status and has been extended to same sex because it is simple.

I remember my Grandfather used to hang onto it ilike a dying man to a life raft "oh so that is his partner is it?" I always wanted to say that using the term partner did not change the fact that they were boyfriends and why on earth could he not, as an adult man, just accept that fact and get on with it?

Partner is a bit more grown-up than boyfriend or girlfriend, though. I had girlfriends when I was 15.

Although several people have told me that in the US "partner" refers more-or-less exclusively to a same sex partner (so that there is confusion when a British person in a long-term heterosexual relationship refers to his or her partner). If that's true, doesn't it suggest that "partner" extended the other way, i.e. starting off as a description of a same sex partner and then extending to heterosexual partners?

I hate using the term boyfriend/girlfriend for anyone over the age of about 25. It just seems so teenage. There isn't really an alternative term for the space on the continuum between "fuckbuddy"/"Friends With Benefits" and "partner", though.

'life partner' is just cheesy, I suppose.

I disagree, I had a boyfriend when I was 12 but that does not mean the term is exclusivly for the use of the young...

I hate the term partner and I cannot see me likling it applied to me at 40 or 60 or at any other time tbh it is just such a meh word, it doesn't mean anything, or rather it means so many things that it becomes meaningless.

Like with my grandfather, he used it because he could then pretend to himself that he was not really talking about a gay couple...maybe they were business partners or partners in buying ahouse....

oh, I can kind of see 'partner' being a positive in-it-together sort of romantic thing. Still prefer wife, though.

Anyway, I need to tear myself away from the PC, or I'll get nowt done today.

Prof, I don't think so, I think it wa here for common law and adopted by US for same sex then extended here to same sex... at least that is how I understand it!

Life partner is very cheesy. I would be happy with an adult equivelent of boyfriend/girlfriend if one could be dreamt up but it would have to be a word that means just that - a couple who are together but not married/entered into a civil partnership... not a whole realm of other things too!

I don't like men being described as "boys" or women being described as "girls" either, so I think that factors into it. I have nothing against "man friend" or "woman friend" although they are a bit Victorian and perhaps a little ambiguous (although Americans in particular use "girlfriend" to refer to platonic relationships as well as romantic ones, so there's plenty of ambiguity slodhing around already). Perhaps it's time for a real throwback to "lady friend" or "gentleman caller"...?