Equal civil marriage consultation

[Alittlefeminist]

Please take part in this short Home Office consultation on equal civil marriage: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage

A great opportunity also to make your views heard on the need to open up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples!

There is no need to open up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples; a basic civil marriage in a register office is no different to civil partnerships.

The arguments against this are that marriages are patriarchal, maybe, but I cannot see society treating civilly-partnered straight couples as any different to the married. Remember, the whole point of CP's is that they are the legal equivalent of marriage.

As for the couple themselves: surely the quality of their relationship is not dependent upon their legal status and they can arrange their relationships as they wish?

Now I can see why people would be against marriage AND civil partnerships but to favour one over the other makes little sense. There's no discernible difference.

Let's look at the differences:
Cannot dissolve cp's because of sexual unfaithfulness, can in marriage. Surely in cp's this could be classed as 'unreasonable behaviour'

CP's don't require consummation. Marriages do. How can you prove this either way? Unless a law is passed to examine people's genitals, how do we know? Surely to pass a law would be anti-feminist in the extreme? I think so, anyway.

Sorry, all this 'equal marriage' stuff does my head in. Marriage is a legal contract from an objective viewpoint and as cp's are virtually identical to marriage and a relationship is what the couple make it regardless of marital status, I've no time for it.
In fact, I've signed the coalitionformarriage petition NOT because I am religious (I'm an atheist) nor homophobic, but because I feel the whole thing to be a big fat waste of time and effort.

Wamster People do favour one over the other - we favour heterosexual marriage so much that we invented a whole other thing (CPs) just so that we could stop homosexual people from being allowed into the marriage club.

now that we look back and think perhaps that was a bit silly, not to mention unfair, why not establish marriage equality in law?

As for signing the C4M petition "because I feel the whole thing to be a big fat waste of time and effort" - I'm sure it will reassure the same-sex couples longing to marry that you aren't religious or homophobic, just sure that they don't need to marry because you said so.

oooh, this is difficult.

I can't respond to this consultation because they aren't asking the questions I want to answer.

I think legal civil partnerships should bve available to all couples, and the legal basis of a partnerhisp, The if the religious also wnat a religious wedding, then they can have one.

This consultation messes things up because they still define the heterosexual version as a 'civil marriage' while same sex are 'civil partnership', it parcels this up with agreeing that religious weddings remain heterosexual - I am fiercely opposed to the CoE being part of the constitution of this country and yet being allowed to do anything against the Equality laws that everyone else has to subscribe to....it's another muddled crap heap.

I was just coming on to post about this. Have answered it.

Excellent response blackcurrants.

The consultation on Equal Marriage in Scotland ended in December. I talked to some of the folks in the Equalities Team of the Scottish Government earlier this week and they are busily compiling the responses and hope to publish them by May. Then the real work will start.

There's more information on the picture in Scotland [http://www.scottishlgbt.org/Events/News/Index.aspx?id=209 here]]

Sorry - proper link this time here

And how do you answer this?
"Question 5. The government does not propose to open up religious marriage to same-sex couples. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?"

The proposal to open up religious marriage to same sex couples, or the proposal NOT to open up religious marriage? It is asking me to agree to a non-proposal? HELP! I honestly don't know whether to tick 'agree' or 'disagree' (I think the CoE should bloody well be made to open up marriage if they remain the established church).

That is a bloody badly written question for a gvt consultation

Being over the border, I haven't looked at the actual consultation down there, but the wording does sound crap.

Does it mean that the government DOES NOT plan to change the status quo?

If that's the case, and you believe religious marriage within faith groups that want to do this should be offered to same sex couples (as I definitely do,) then the answer is:

DISAGREE

But the wording is bloody confusing. Deliberate? Who knows?

Thanks for the link. Blu, if you've not got through to the last page you can add commentst there.

Even if there is no difference between a CP and marriage other than the name, isn't that a reason in itself? Branding and image is important. Why else would companies spend thousands - sometimes millions - on overhauling their image and taking on a new name even when the product they are promoting is mostly unchanged.

I think the consultation is a good idea. If a lot of people are rejecting marriage because of it's historical context but actually like the idea of a legally committed relationship and would take up a CP if available, then that's a good enough reason to do it IMO. It will be interesting to see the results of the consultation, and I hope enough people participate in it to make it worthwhile.

Of course there's a difference. They have a whole different history and thus a different meaning.

Julie Bindel was on PM earlier talking about this.

Done, thank you for the link.

Alice the history of civil partnerships is yet to be written. My guess is that people will fall into traditional gender roles as with marriage.

In any case, there are absolutely no plans to make cp's available to heterosexuals. None whatsoever.

sunshineandbooks. I disagree. Sorry but I do. Just because people have a dislike of the name of something isn't good enough reason to change things.
If the rights are the same, they're the same and that is what matters. Don't get me wrong, if cp's didn't exist, I would be absolutely for a legal structure available to gay people akin to marriage, but they do exist so I think: why bother?

It may not be as long as the history of marriage but it's hardly 'yet to be written' . It started the moment it was created.

If they fall into traditional gender roles, then they'll be a heck of a lot of lawns being mown in some civil partnerships, and a heck of a lot of ironing being done in others. Maybe there could be some kind of exchange programme.

So there aren't any plans. Maybe someone could start a campaign about it then. Maybe promote the idea to a wider audience online or something. Oh wait...

Why should anybody want to start a campaign for it?
A quick trip down the register office with a few witnesses in a pair of jeans (as I did) is all it takes for a civil marriage which give same rights as a civil partnership.

Why the fuss about what to call a relationship, anyway?
Would my relationship with my dh be any different if I were 'civilly-partnered' with him and not 'married'? Of course it would not be.

People conduct their relationships the way that they do not because of their marital status.

I mean how pathetic must a person be that they behave in a different way because they are married as opposed to civilly-partnered?

The best thing the government do is tell people to piss off and grow up. CP's offer same rights as marriage and the rest of it is up to the couple to decide for themselves like adult human beings.

I think the name is important. Names and language matter. If they didn't, why would people insist on being called Mrs or Ms? After all, you're still the same person with the same marital status. People make a choice about how they portray themselves to the rest of the world. What they call their relationship is part of that.

Because it matters to them, they care about it, and want to make the world a better place.

Why do you spend your time knocking them instead?

So you don't think it makes a difference, others do. Whoop-de-do. If there were not difference between the terms, why would the church be kicking up a fuss? Their whole protest is about how marriage has a particular meaning that encompasses hetrosexuality and reproduction. There's a whole bunch of other baggage that goes with marriage being associated with the church.

Were it a campaign to shoot puppies, or pull out kittens claws, I'd think you have a point. But it isn't.

I'm sorry, sunshineandbooks, while I agree that names are important, I don't think that it's important enough to use parlimentary time on.
I signed all the petitions I could to bring in civil partnerships, because I felt there was genuine unfairness. Now, though, I'm like: 'meh', because it's up to people to define their relationships in a way that suits them.

Alice , I hate to agree with the catholic church on anything but I am anti-gay marriage, too, but for entirely different reasons.

what sab said. names matter. the two may confer the same rights, but they are clearly not the same, or they would have the same name! I wouldn't have created a separate entity and would have preferred everyone just had the chance to marry. but now cps exist, both marriage and cp should be open to everyone on the grounds of equality. the two have different histories (herstories?, see names matter in feminism) and it may be that some couples prefer one to another because of this.

'piss off and grow up' sounds about right wamster

They didn't have the same name because care was taken not to offend the religious. I think marriage may have a negative history, and cp's? I'm not sure yet of their history, but, all the same, if the issue is about people not liking the history well I think that is all well and good but not enough to warrant parliamentary time.

There really has to come a time when people must realise that how their relationships are conducted is down to THEM and not their marital status.

Also, civilly-partnered or married, the state will give same treatment.

Also, civilly-partnered or married, the state will give same treatment
The state will; but people in general are less likely to while the name is different.

I disagree, Grimma, because:
a, Do we as a society really care about marriage (full stop) anymore? Cohabitation is completely acceptable nowadays.

b, People understand that cp's are a commitment akin to marriage, anyway.

If you're non-homophobic, you won't care about marital status. If people are homophobic, the issue of gay people 'taking' over one of their institutions is going to make them dislike homosexuality anymore.