If you support Equal Marriage

[birdofthenorth]

...please take a couple of minutes to email your MP to say so, because they are being absolutely inundated with the other side of the debate. I fully accept both sides are valid so don't wish to start a bunfight here, I just can't help thinking one side is well organised and getting all the air time whilst the other is generally less fussed and sitting quietly. That is all. Thank you.

I agree absolutely-there is much emphasis on religious liberty so it would be good to mention it if you are religious and in favour of equal marriage.
I honestly cannot see why people are against something which will only affect you if you are one of the people who want to marry someone of the same sex.
If you are not sure who your mp is you can find out here
www.c4em.org.uk/ and use their template email.

I'm not sure there is another side to it.

We are supposed to live in a free country right? And people are supposed to be free to do whatever they like so long as it does not harm anyone else.

So the question in my mind is "If two people of the same sex want to get married, who does it harm?" And I can't think of anyone!

You might have religious beliefs but that isn't a valid reason. It's not causing you any financial, physical or emotional harm at all. Get a grip I say. It's the 21st century.

Agree very much but as a regular CofE churchgoer myself I know that some -very nice, kind, normal- people are very sensitive about redefining marriage in any way. Obviously I myself are in the "what harm does it cause?!" bracket else I wouldn't be posting in support!

Churches are handing out postcards to be mailed to MPs.

There is a letter on queeringthechurch.com which the author is happy for people to copy. Can't do links (on phone) but if you go to queeringthechurch its in Jan 2013 archive on the last page.

What is Equal Marriage exactly?

The ability of two consenting adults to get married regardless of which particular brand of genitals they have. I'll be sending an email, thanks for the reminder.

Can't do links today either Cogito but google it and click on the Home Office page for more info- it removes the ban on same sex civil marriage and the ban on those religions who want to from hosting same sex marriages (bizarrely the Government have proposed to outlaw it in the CofE rather than leave it up to them!).

MPs are expected to vote on it in the next couple of weeks. All major parties are having a free vote not a three line whip regardless of their party policy.

The government should have nothing to do with marriage, only civil partnerships.

Much as I agree harriet, the Govt has made it clear that so many people want the name 'marriage' for their legally-recognised partnership, which has been available to Christians and civilly-married people for ages, that they are not going to get rid of that. Nor open up civil partnerships to mixed-sex couples, for some reason.

The Quakers are one of the churches wanting to be able to marry any pair they like.

Maybe another approach is for the government to get out of marriage altogether.

Any 2 people who want to be associated in this way should have a right to a civil partnership. This would include both heterosexual and homosexual couples. I would also include (which I don't think it does at the moment) pairs of people not in a sexual relationship e.g. an elderly pair of unmarried siblings who want to have the benefits of such a setup.

So anyone should be able to specify a "significant other" and it's not the government's business to know any more than that, and especially not their conjugal arrangements.

This issue about what "marriage" is is not a question of law or politics but one about the English language. Language changes not by government edict, nor at the behest of the metropolitan bien pensant elite (though they might want to think it does), but in response to popular usage.

At the moment the common usage is that it refers to a union between a man and a woman.

This has been understood even in cultures and subcultures in which gay relationships have been tolerated and accepted.

If, for example, Claire Balding wants to use it differently and if over time she can persuade enough others to use it similarly then the language will have changed. But that has not happened yet.