pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Feb 14, 2013 2:06:25 GMT
As I understood it, if 6 people went into the registry office today, they could all take part in a civil ceremonies to make themselves into 3 couples, and all three couples would have equal rights in law regarding "next of kin", inheritance etc. regardless of them being in a male/female relationship or male/male relationship or female/female relationship. If this is the case why the need for a "gay marriage" law? someone made good observations in a comedy slot on the radio about civil partnership and equal marriage. a straight couple has the choice of a civil wedding, a religious wedding or a humanist wedding. for a gay couple there is no choice. it is civil partnership, governed by legislation. there are constraints to a civil partnership. it is presided over by a registrar and states what is and isn't allowed. for instance the choice of music or poetry is limited because there is not to be any mention of marriage. the legislation is specific that anything religious is not allowed; nor can there be reference to any deity or anything sectarian. and, if the bible forbids lots of things that we no longer pay attention to why oughtn't it be the same for equal marriage?
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Feb 14, 2013 2:09:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 14, 2013 2:45:14 GMT
And will you be upgrading, jean?
Since Nick now assures us that the CP and marriage are legally identical (which is my argument anyway) why bother?
Gays themselves may well choose not speak of gay marriage in the future, jean. But you can be sure everyone else will, just like this morning on Woman's Hour!
This irrational urge for faux "equality" on the part of a few gays is weird. Whatever happened to "gay pride" and daring to be different that used to get you on to the streets? Why is the state's permission for you to marry and conformity to the mores of the majority so all-fired important to you all of a sudden? What a little coterie of conformists you have turned into! Or is it all a tongue-in-cheek, camp send-up of straight society? You'll be demanding tax-breaks for married couples next, I expect!
|
|
Joe K
WH Member
Posts: 608
|
Post by Joe K on Feb 14, 2013 6:12:12 GMT
Gay marriage was referred to as "gay marriage" this morning on Woman's Hour. Proof, if any were needed, that normal usage of the word marriage will refer to that between a man and a woman, whereas the gay variant will remain explicitly demarcated by most people in everyday language. Why? Because they are different and everyone except a few diehards know it. The common usage is all. Proof of nothing of the sort. It merely demonstrates the commonplace I referred to above: they'll have to stipulate heterosexual marriage if they wish to convey any such intended distinction. After a few years, when "gay marriage" has been legal and routinely contracted, it will simply be assumed that anyone who then says "marriage" is referring to the institution that is applicable to both heterosexuals and gays. If they intend to communicate something more specific, they'll have to say so - they'll say "gay marriage" or "heterosexual marriage". How much longer will it take for polygamous 'marriage', or under-age 'marriage' (although I guess it won't be under-age when it's legalised) to be accepted without question? It's quaint, the way people talk about how the removal of one particular restriction will be viewed as 'no big deal' in a few years time, as if it won't be followed by a whole bunch of other pleas for exceptions to the rule. 'Thin end of the wedge' is a cliche for a reason.
|
|
Joe K
WH Member
Posts: 608
|
Post by Joe K on Feb 14, 2013 6:17:59 GMT
I don't have a background in the law, so I'm not in a position to say whether this is a "minor matter". You don't need a background in law. All you need to know is that legally there is no difference between "civil partnership" and "marriage", as the opponents of gay marriage constantly harp. All the legal paraphernalia setting up such partnerships is already in place - it's merely a matter of a change in definition. There is one difference. With civil partnerships, couples do not have to 'consummate' their union for it to be recognised. now, you might argue that no-one really demands proof of married couples either, but there's a reason for this exemption, presumably, so i makes a difference...
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Feb 14, 2013 9:50:27 GMT
Have you never heard of equal but different, Marchesa?
Joe K - yes, they'll be wanting to marry their dogs next. Give em an inch, eh?
|
|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Feb 14, 2013 10:31:08 GMT
a straight couple has the choice of a civil wedding, a religious wedding or a humanist wedding. for a gay couple there is no choice. it is civil partnership, governed by legislation. I don't know if this still holds true, but when I married (CofE) the priest who performed the service was also the "registrar" so my marriage was recognised "by the state". However my mother recalls how when she married (catholic), she had to get married in the morning and arrange for the local civil registrar to attend for her marriage to be recognised "by the state". (This I should point out took place many, many, many years ago so things my have changed). I suppose that anyone performing the marriage ceremony must be approved/registered in some way for the marriage to be officially recognized. Wasn't there an issue when Mike Jagger & Jerry Hall separated? She thought they were married, but the service turned out not to be recognised - or something like that. I attended a wedding several years ago - great fun was had by all - but the couple had had to go to the local registry office to actually marry, because the location (lovely) and the officiating person (great guy - the couple's mate) and the service (totally loopy) wasn't recognised by "the state". Weddings are all different - however they must all contain an element that conforms to rules laid down by the state for the marriage to be recognised by the state.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 14, 2013 10:42:18 GMT
With civil partnerships, couples do not have to 'consummate' their union for it to be recognised. now, you might argue that no-one really demands proof of married couples either... Quite so. the absence of 'consummation' is grounds for an annulment by the Catholic church, if the couple themselves wish it. The reason is that that's how children are produced. If procreation is a necessary part of marriage, then it's very important indeed. But if that's so, then, as has often been pointed out, couples beyond childbearing age should not presume to try to marry. But another very important reason for people marrying is to express sexually their love for each other. It may be news to some here, but there are many ways of doing this, not all of which involve what's usually called consummation. If anyone can tell me of a couple forced to have their marriage annulled against their will because of non-consummation, I'll be very interested.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 14, 2013 10:56:42 GMT
Gays themselves may well choose not speak of gay marriage in the future, jean. But you can be sure everyone else will, just like this morning on Woman's Hour! Neither I nor anyone else may be sure of any such thing, marchesa. As I explained earlier: Gay marriage was referred to as "gay marriage" this morning on Woman's Hour. Proof, if any were needed, that normal usage of the word marriage will refer to that between a man and a woman, whereas the gay variant will remain explicitly demarcated by most people in everyday language. Why? Because they are different... No such conclusion can or should be drawn from what anyone says this morning. The difference between heterosexual and gay marriage at the moment is that one is legal and the other isn't, yet. Hence the need to distinguish. When and if the proposed legislation is enacted, there will be no need to speak separately of gay marriage, and nobody will. Just wait and see. The reason for anyone talking about marriage at the moment is because of the proposed legislation. But when people talk about other actual people getting married, that's what they say - they're getting married, I'm going to their wedding, it was a lovely wedding, that sort of thing - and there isn't much opportunity for inserting gay or fake into such statements. How would you do it?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 14, 2013 11:09:15 GMT
I don't know if this still holds true, but when I married (CofE) the priest who performed the service was also the "registrar" so my marriage was recognised "by the state". However my mother recalls how when she married (catholic), she had to get married in the morning and arrange for the local civil registrar to attend for her marriage to be recognised "by the state". (This I should point out took place many, many, many years ago so things my have changed). When the C of E controlled everything, its priests were automatically recognised as those whose function it was to preside over marriages (in fact, it's the parties to the marriage themselves who actually perform the marriage). Not permitting Catholic priests and Nonconformist ministers to act as registrars was just a way of keeping the Catholics and Nonconformists in their place. I think it's all changed now.
|
|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Feb 14, 2013 11:26:04 GMT
I don't know if this still holds true, but when I married (CofE) the priest who performed the service was also the "registrar" so my marriage was recognised "by the state". However my mother recalls how when she married (catholic), she had to get married in the morning and arrange for the local civil registrar to attend for her marriage to be recognised "by the state". (This I should point out took place many, many, many years ago so things my have changed). When the C of E controlled everything, its priests were automatically recognised as those whose function it was to preside over marriages (in fact, it's the parties to the marriage themselves who actually perform the marriage). Not permitting Catholic priests and Nonconformist ministers to act as registrars was just a way of keeping the Catholics and Nonconformists in their place. I think it's all changed now. But I assume that whoever is officiating is registered in some way to make the marriage legal?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 14, 2013 11:32:48 GMT
I sure have, aubrey. It was one of the first arguments I deployed to jean when reminding her of the days when gay liberation was truly revolutionary. Now, conformity is everything.
|
|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Feb 14, 2013 11:38:36 GMT
Interesting - I assume there must have been some financial implications involved here: the access to health insurance of a spouse, that sort of thing? Quick synopsis. Denny & Alan, very good friends, drinking, smoking, womanising mates. Denny (older one) diagnosed Alzheimer's, Denny isn't married doesn't have next of kin, and he is concerned about who will manage his affairs as his condition gets worst. Alan is his best mate so they agreed that if they enter a "civil partnership" Alan will be next of kin and be able to make decisions on Denny's behalf - and mentioned in passing when Denny dies Alan will get all his money instead of it going to the government.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Feb 14, 2013 13:48:23 GMT
I loved Denny Crane; captain Kirk's finest hour.
And James Spader always good too.
Win-Win!
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Feb 14, 2013 13:57:31 GMT
I sure have, aubrey. It was one of the first arguments I deployed to jean when reminding her of the days when gay liberation was truly revolutionary. Now, conformity is everything. You talk as though all Gay People are alike! (a mistake made by prejudiced people so best avoided I think) Some gay people will want to marry and some won't just like normal ordinary* people. And, yes, it is possible that for some gay people maybe conformity is everything. People eh, what are they like! * I can fuck** about with words too - but I'm only doing it here to make the point that choice of words matters. **No PC nonsense from me, Aubrey!
|
|