Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine UK Civil Partnership Bill Passes Through Lords

Oddly enough this doesn't seem to have been reported at all here in the UK, so I doubt it's been reported in the States either. However last night Lords (the upper house of Parliament) let through the Civil Partnership Bill which, in effect, allows gay marriage. The Government have been quite savvy in not calling it marriage so avoiding any possibly religious conotations and even though it's not perfect it does go a long way to equalising things. There are still a lot of things that need to sorted to actually make same sex couples legally the same as straight couples (inheritence, some parenting issues and so on) but I think it's probably easier to amend an existing law rather than introduce something that is exactly the same as marriage (even if not in name).

More details of the vote at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020249.stm

What is most bizarre about this is the fact that the Bill to ban fox hunting with hounds actually has had a huge amount of press (it was rejected by the Lords for a third time) and this, which would be the more contensious (sp?) law in the States went through with only minor troubles.

That sounds great Bevis. I still think it is a cop out not to just call it marriage. I mean if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, & acts like a duck, why call it something else?

Hopefully down the road, they'll just call it what it is - marriage.

Ah, but technically a marriage is a religious ceremony. The legal side of it is the civil union. So even though the Civil Partnerships won't be called marriage they will give almost all the rights that a (legally defined) marriage gives.

Like I say though, I think the main reason the government has completely avoided calling it gay marriage is that they can avoid the religious objections to it (which after all are the only real grounds to argue against it). It's probably the same reason why there has been so little hoo-ha over it. There's nothing for the religious right to get their teeth into. I mean, the whole 'forcing priests to marry gay couples' was always a stupid arguement since priests/vicars/rabbis/etc don't *have* to marry anyone they don't want to anyway, but by making the whole thing purely a matter of State rather Church you cut out a big part of the anti argument.

Of course there will be various religious ceremonies and weddings coupled with the signing of the registar, but it still leaves it up to the church/temple/etc to decide whether they let same sex couples get 'married' with them or not.

Ermm.... I think I might be rambling there a bit, but hopefully you get my point. The government have sort of got gay amrriages in via the back door (fnar fnar) and once they are established it'll be easier to change the definition later on. i mean, to be honest I think once gay couples do start signing the registar then everyone will refer to them being married anyway so it won't really make any difference. Course, now they'll have to decide what to do about the 'single/married/divorced/widowed' section on official forms. Do they add 'civil partnered' or just change 'married' to something else? Heh.

Personally, I would prefer a world where civil partnerships are legalized with little fanfare and everyone is screaming bloody murder about fox hunting....not that I care that much about foxes.

Yup. I attended a m/f civil ceremony once, and at no point did the registrar call it a marriage (although she kept saying it was as valid as...). Since the gay couples wouldn't be married in church, they can't call them marriages either.

Bevis,

I do understand the point of trying to diffuse the "controversy" by not calling it "marriage" and letting people get used to the idea. But from my training, I see that the whole "separate but equal" thing doesn't work in the long run.

I don't know how things run over there, but here a couple doesn't have to have a religious ceremony and they can still be married. i.e. atheists probably don't have a religious ceremony, but get married by a justice of the peace. Would such a heterosexual couple be married or civil partnered over there?

I am curious, what rights that married couples have that are not given to those who are civilly partnered?

Reboot,

Did your friends say "we're getting married" or did they say "We're getting civilly partnered (or some other such term)" ?

Oh, no, it's exactly the same thing here. I'm just talking semantics really. On an absolute technical level a 'marriage' is a religious ceremony, a 'wedding' is a non-religious ceremony and a 'civil partnership/union' is a legally binding contract. In actual fact none of those things really apply on a day to day basis. As Reboot says, a ceremony performed by a registrar isn't *actually* a marriage, just a legal contract. I do get your point about equal but different though, but as I say I think once it's law it'll only be a matter of time before people aknowledge it for what it is.

As for the rights that are missing, they're not huge. A couple of issues about inheritence rights (although at one point the Bill didn't include *any* inheritence rights) and some issues about the definition of parenting within a Civil Partnership (mostly to do with what happens if a couple get divorced). Somewhere like Stonewall would probably have the full details of what's missing but whereas when the Bill was first proposed there were a lot of rights missing now they're minor points. That being said in an ideal world there shouldn't be anything missing at all and all the Bill should do is remove the definition of a legal marriage (bearing in mind everything I just said about what a marriage means...) as being just between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, as far too many of us know, this isn't an ideal world...

Oh, THEY said "marriage." It's official semantics more than anything else.

Isn't it all this campaigning for gay marriage that ensured George Bush's victory. Don't you think it would have been better for the gays in America to shut up campaigning about gay "marriage" instead? You will have to drop the whole "gay marriage" thing if you want a Democrat presidennt next time. After Margaret Cho shoving herself down my throat last night I'm actually against gay marriage now! Let's face it if it went through most gays would just do a Britney and get pissed up and married for a alugh and then split up after 2 days. The long term gay couple I know who are living together are all shagging other people as well as their partners anyway - and that's not "equal" is it? In my book, the gays want the right but they'll just abuse the privelege.

CK - I don't see what difference being gay or straight makes to whether or not you shag around. I'm sure that some straight couples do as well.

Good luck to them all.
I would say that "as long as they love each other....", but then I'm sure not all straight couples love each other........

Being treated with dignity and equality is a step forwards in my book.

There are a certain number of people who do that, Comet, but not everyone. It's never something that interested me. In fact, I ended one relationship because the other guy wanted to do this sort of thing and I didn't like it. When I'm in a relationship, I want it strictly monogamous. But thanks for painting us all with the same brush.

Aww, you're so cynical CK. It's certainly true that 'open' relationships are more common within the gay community (using the phrase 'gay community' vaguely since I think it's a bit of a myth) but possibly that's more to do with the relativly relaxed attitude to sex there when compared to straight society. On the other hand Chris and I have been together four and a half years and I'd go ape-shit if he even suggested sleeping with someone else and even more wiggy if he actually did it. There are a lot of monogomous gay and lesbian couples out there. There are a lot of tarts too, and couples who will do a Britney and such, but there are enough couples that would like the rights that marriage or civil partnerships will give to make it a worthwhile cause. Straight couples aren't exactly renowned these days for having great marriages either (what's the divorce rate now, nearly 50% or something?) so, to mis-quote Dolly Parton (I think) why should only straights be miserable.

Personally I do want to marry Chris at some point, partially for what getting married means in terms of the relationship but also so that he can be my next of kin, have the visiting rights and we can share the financial rights that come with it. If we're in a long term relationship (and I sure hope we are) then I want to be sure that we're secure both emotionally and financially/legally. Especially if and when we decide to adopt.

I do sort of agree with you about the Shrub winning thing though. It became such a huge issue that it did affect how people voted when in reality it shouldn't have been a big issue at all (hell, while we were there in ocotber the economy and the war seemed to have taken second place to gay marriage which is just ridiculous). The fact that it was all done very low key here and passe dthrough with barely a blip on most people's radar shows that if you don't really kick up a huge fuss about it the majority of people simply don't care. it's only the two extremes of the arguement (both on the pro and anti side) who really get wound up about it. I mean, for the majority of people how does it have any impact on them at all? I suppose we also have the added advantage here in the Uk that the religious Right simply aren't as strong as they are in the US, but I think the point still stands.

Some vaguelly interesting points on the Beeb website - mostly heterosexuals getting the hump for some reason.

Treating gays differently than straights always gets me thinking about other social injustices of the past e.g. apartheid, womens rights.

Most of us agree that discriminating against people on a basis of colour, creed or sex is fundamentally wrong, so why should people care who I want to spend my personal time with?

And the answer would appear to be Religion.

Personally I'm an aetheist, so that argument doesn't cut it with me.
But, looking from a slightly less atheistic point of view, is it not the case that Jesus taught us to treat our fellow man in a way that we ourselves would want to be treated?

Personally, I always saw that passage as being the whole point of the combined Old & New Testaments - the rest is just a history lesson.
(Not believing in the big G, the bit about not choosing any idol above Jesus' dad never really hit the spot for me.)

Otherwise you can pick and choose passages from all over to prove any point you wish to make. And a separate one to disprove it.

Love and Respect to all.

The "gay marriage ensured Bush's victory" meme is yet another media narrative that gets pushed by the punditocracy, ignoring other factors because it kills a nice little sound bite. As much as I appreciate killing the "Gavin Newsom is a rising star in the Democrat party" talk, there was a lot more going on in this election.

If there is going to be a Democrat President next time:
- the Democrats will need to become more aggressive in their actions and stop being the party of excuses... stand for something other than defending themselves whenever someone calls them "liberal" damnit

- seriously fight the Right Wing Noise Machine, the Democrats need to stop acting like talk radio is below them and make liberal talkers like Randi Rhodes as big a force as, at least as big as Laura Ingrahm

- stop treating the Green Party the way the Republicans treat the Democrats, the Greens and the Democrats have to work together -- the Democrats have to stop acting like the Greens stole votes that the Democrats were entitled to

- admit that the Republicans have gotten better at grassroots campaigning and try to learn some lessons there (they could ask Howard Dean)

Quote

After Margaret Cho shoving herself down my throat last night I'm actually against gay marriage now!

Ugh, I really wish Margaret Cho wouldn't talk about civil rights. She really doesn't know how to talk that kind of stuff, she gets bogged down in dogma. "Equal rights" may get her in a huff, but that's not the case for most people unless you talk about what inequality means.

Quote

Let's face it if it went through most gays would just do a Britney and get pissed up and married for a alugh and then split up after 2 days.

Ah, nice, none of the gay couples in long term relationships mean it, they don't want for it to be easier to take care of each other. We're all serial daters constantly getting laid, spending our nights in nightclubs, aren't we?

Let me spell out what marriage means (at least in the USA) because it's a right that many people who have it take for granted.

- It means that if you love someone from another country who is out of options to stay in the country you don't have to choose between the love of your life and the love of your partner because you can sponsor your spouse for citizenship. I knew a guy who was in this situation and it was a painful delimma -- it was between breaking up a five year relationship or leaving the country.

- It means that you can expect with full confidence that you'll be allowed to see your partner and hope to provide comfort when (s)he gets sick.

- It means that you don't have to worry that when you die your spouse will also lose what you've built together. There are inheritance and tax benefits of marriage that are written with the intent of preventing widows and widowers from losing their shared property. (This is not about the estate tax, as Bush ridiculously suggested to the uninformed Larry King.)

- It means that if your employer offers you benefits intended to help you take care of your family, you don't pay extra for it. (My partner will be paying extra taxes next year because he wanted me to get health care coverage from his employer, which offers domestic partner benefits. The IRS considers that additional income so we'll be paying more because he didn't like me putting off that new pair of glasses my health care plan doesn't cover... or putting off getting a cough checked out because it ddin't feel bad enough to warrant a five hour wait in urgent care.) There are also tax penalties to inheriting a 401k plan from anyone other than your spouse.

- It means that if your relationship ends, there are laws in place to help determine how the shared property is split.

A GAO report said that there are 1,049 Federal laws that are affected by the marital state. That roughly translates into 1,049 federal rights that are being denied to same-sex couples... and this was only in relation to federal law. Since marriage is largely regulated by states, there's a lot of territory the report didn't examine.

Quote

The long term gay couple I know who are living together are all shagging other people as well as their partners anyway - and that's not "equal" is it? In my book, the gays want the right but they'll just abuse the privelege.

Ah, nice. So my friends Chris and Kyle (10 years, monogomous relationship) should have to worry if their partner will even be able to lay a claim to the home they bought together because of our mutual friends who are in an open relationship?

And if you're going to use "abusing the privelege" as an excuse for opposinge equal marriage rights could we please see some work to clean up the way the people who can marry are abusing the right?

OK. Fair enough. But I can't help feeling that gays that want to get married are making all the other homos look like nutters. You know! If any gays I knew referred to their partner as their "husband" I'd probably puke!

I know it's not a nice sentiment but it's the truth! You can't paint stripes on a donkey and insist that everyone calls it a zebra can you?

Also, all the "rights" you want - can't they be sroted out in other ways? If you want to leave your house to someone don't you just make a will and sepcifiy your wishes that way? And if you want your partner to visit you in the hosptial don't you just telll the staff? I guess if you're unconcious that'd be a bit tricky. But how oftenis that going to happen?

Hays are a tiny minority of spciety and the ones that want to get married are even a smaller proporiton of society. My feeling is that if you're gay and you want to marry your boyfriend then tough! You were bron unlucky! You can't!

It's the same with Muslims who live in Britain who are campaigning to get tried by Sharia courts and basically set up a seperate legal systme for Muslims in the UK. If they don't like the legal system here then they should move to a muslim country. Like it or lump it innit?

Why? It makes the most sense. A husband is a male to whom you're married.

That's fine. I prefer to know where I stand with people. It's one reason I don't like PC - it keeps you from knowing your enemies.

Frankly, no, this can't be sorted out in other ways. Besides, why should be have to? Heterosexuals who get married don't have to make special provisions, so why should it be necessary for homosexuals? What you don't realize is how easily wills are contested in court by family members who don't approve of the relationship. Furthermore, hospital visitatopms are tricky. Visits can be limited strictly to family members. And guess what? If you're not related, you're not family.

Except that you can in some places. There are a growing number of countries who allow it. Even one state in the US allows it. But I like how your bigotry on the matter shows through so clearly. You don't even have a good reason to oppose it. It's not like it has any effect on your life.

Actually, that's entirely different. Muslims want their own systems. Gays want to be part of the same system as everyone else.

Er - no they obviously don't. Because the system is that gays can't marry each other. Gays want to muck the system up for everyone else.

Right, buggery and homosexuality has obviously been going on since time immemorial yes? Just like normal sexuality has been. So why is it now that gays want marriage rights? They never have in the past. It's ridiculous. Personally, I do think that it makes a mockery of the institute of marriage. The cultural expectation is that men and women marry and "one day" they'll have kids. Gays marrying makes no sense. What's the point? So a few men in a tiny tiny minority of the general population can visit their partner in the remote possibility the partner's in a coma and his "in laws" don't like him? That's not a good enough reason to change the system!

Seriously, it's absolutely ridiculous. Gays aren't the same as heterosexuals and there's no point whining about it.

Here we go - if someone doesn't agree with rabid gay "rights" campaigning they're labelled a bigot.

Well that shows what you know dunnit! I think you lot need to calm down and do something more useful. Like stopping gays dying of aids or campaign to lower green house gasses or try to stop the panda becoming extinct. Something else else useful. Coz at the moment it just looks like a load of marys moaning coz they're not allowed to mince up the aisle in a wedding dress.

you are absolutly right comet king...we should ignore the fact that one human being is not treated the same as another. That is such a backwards thing to say. Let take a trip in a timebubble with that attitude brings shall we?
lets see.... Sorry ladies, but you can't vote, now stop whining
Back of the bus Rosa, and stop your whining
Can you see where this is going yet? or do you think those are good ideas too?

Nice of you to dodge every single point I made. I guess it's easier than admitting you're wrong.

What points are there to address? Just more of this "oooh I want to get married" nonsense.

Good luck with the veil fitting though!

CK, I think you're taking this a bit too far, if you haven't the dignity to leave well alone then at least please delete or edit your last post - it's very ill considered and verging on trolling.

CK, as a moderator on this board I am asking that if you don't have anything further to offer to this topic beyond restating your position in an increasingly offensive manner, will you please leave it? If you want to troll, go find a nice Green Lantern board somewhere.