Should 'Marriage' be re-defined

[LeMartinPecheur]

Legally, the major difference is that a marriage must be consummated in order to be valid. There is no such requirement on a civil partnership

Not quite correct I think. Such a marriage is surely valid until one or other of the parties obtains an annulment on gounds of non-consummation (non-parties are rarely interested and won't usually have the evidence, and probably have no legal standing anyway).

Who knows how many unconsummated marriages, happy or unhappy, have lasted until death?

[John Skelton]

Well, it's good to see that some, at least, have a sense of logic (or more likely convenient tactics) and are now earnestly battling to ensure equal rights for heterosexuals and be seen in the vanguard of the fight against 'heterophobia'. You first introduced the word 'phoney', John ..' how apt!

In order for it to be "phoney" it would have had to be an opportunistic adoption of that line in response to the complaint of inequality that has - opportunistically - been raised. That's not the case: the campaigns have always gone together. Some people, when they say they believe in equality, mean it. The move to equality in civil partnership would, of course, be perceived as a threat by institutions like the Catholic Church. Which would complain about undermining marriage.

I'm not particularly aware that I'm stopping anyone from leading their lives as they see fit. Oh, if I had that sort of power you'd know all about it, John Skelton, believe me!

I don't doubt it.

I do however object to be suddenly told that the ancient institution of marriage between a man and a woman has now been hijacked by people who wish to change its meaning for their own social and political purposes.

Good: we are in agreement. I object to being told that, too. The odd thing is I thought it was you doing the telling. In the past, in the ancient institution of marriage, women have had no autonomous rights whatsoever. All the rights belonged with the man (the husband). If the institution is so immemorial, is it fair to assume that the reforms which changed that state of affairs (a state of affairs where effectively a wife was her husband's property) in response to changes in social and political attitudes driven by campaigns and campaigners are something you deplore? After all, they made a great change to "the ancient institution of marriage."

All I ask is to retain the long-standing and precious institution that specifically recognises my own sexuality and that of my wife ... is that really too much to ask?

If same-sex marriage becomes law you think that you and your wife will spontaneously change sex? Reassure yourself - it won't happen.

[MrGongGong]

If same-sex marriage becomes law you think that you and your wife will spontaneously change sex? Reassure yourself - it won't happen.

I'd stop trumpeting your insecurities if I were you Scotty

[salymap]

As a single 'straight' woman I asked two old male friends that I have known since 1950, who have a Civil Partnership. They are quite happy as they are as the house and finances etc are all taken care of. They have a good relationship and that is all that matters to them and so to me.

[Vile Consort]

The main difference would appear to be that marriage is between a man and a woman and a civil partnership between homosexuals of either sex. Those terms make logical sense as 'marriage' indicates a union of separate identities whilst 'partnership' does suggest a degree of party similarity.

That doesn't really answer the question except in the sense of more angels being able to dance on the point of this pin than that one. How can you tell whether a "union of separate identities" has actually taken place? And if you can tell, how do you deal with the possibility of it not happening inside a marriage, or it occurring outside of one?

Suppose civil partnerships were available to a man and a woman. You can't deny that the government could allow such a thing if it wished. How would you be able to tell, without looking at the certificate, whether they a couple was married or "merely" in a civil partnership?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I am certainly not homophobic ...

why do the homosexual community want to hijack the institution of Marriage?. It is not meant for their relationships which is why I framed my original question as I did


we now,at least in the public sphere, have State imposed morality which is just as bad as any prejudice that the homosexual community has suffered. Will the religious State - school teacher who in conscience is not prepared to tell his/her pupils when the law is changed ( as it will be because this consultation is phoney - the decision has been made ) that it is right that two men or two women can be married be punished by losing their jobs as has happened in other situations concerning homosexual equality?

I also object to the hijacking of this lovely old English word by the homosexual community.

I am genuinely glad that you support church blessings of same-sex civil partnerships, but your repeated use of such loaded vocabulary as "the homosexual community" that "hijack" heterosexual institutions and vocabulary suggests a real fear (or "phobia") of Gay rights that gives the lie to your opening statement here. People whose physical and emotional lives harm no one don't require "tolerance", they demand respect.

[Lateralthinking1]

As a single 'straight' woman I asked two old male friends that I have known since 1950, who have a Civil Partnership. They are quite happy as they are as the house and finances etc are all taken care of. They have a good relationship and that is all that matters to them and so to me.

The 'straight' in your contribution tells us much about how life has changed. Many youngsters would read it and interpret it as "not quite sure" or "ish". Anyone over a certain age knows that it's unequivocal. What it denotes is that there are still many who feel that intimacy is intimacy, just a part of life and pretty unassuming. The requirement to self-identify as heterosexual seems somewhat bizarre, overly sexualised and something of an imposition. As you show, such instinct is not in many cases homophobic. Where heterosexuality has become overtly sexual is a bit ironically in parts of the church where it is very much more than "just is".

Someone mentioned in passing something about marriage and legal rights. One of the things I note is that this debate is taking off at a time when further tax privileges for married couples are being considered. Although those are not the main reason for it, as the law stands those would exclude financial privileges to gay people. Again, then, the institutions are a part of the impetus because in a fair country that wouldn't be acceptable. There are all kinds of economic reasons why the Government would prefer units of two and more rather than one. If and when equality for gay people ever happens, I am of the view that there will be a need for single people of all persuasions to fight very hard to ensure that singles don't become the most discriminated against group of people.

[Ferretfancy]

I have always felt at heart that a formal ceremony of any sort is unnecessary in order to have a loving, committed relationship. Nevertheless, I did marry (over forty years ago), in order to conform to social expectations, I suppose. I regard this as a sort of weakness, almost superstition, on my part, though it doesn't particularly worry me and I don't dwell on it. However, I believe passionately in equality, and if homosexual couples wish to marry, I see no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't. Perhaps civil partnership status should be available to all, or perhaps both gay and straight unions should be called marriage. It doesn't much matter, as long as they are completely equal in all respects.

If this involves a new legal definition of marriage, so be it. The sky won't fall in.

Well said, Mary.

Surely the point is that some gay couples feel the need for their relationship to be formally recognised, and civil partnerships make this possible, but in addition there are those who wish it to be defined as marriage.If this makes them happier, why not? Nobody is forcing religious bodies to conduct the ceremonies.
As for re-defining marriage, as it stands it's an institution with a high failure rate, and there are as many registry office weddings as there are in church, so maybe a new template might be a very good thing.
My nephew married his girlfriend last year after their loving relationship had lasted twenty years, not out of necessity, but to add to their happiness and support in ill health. It struck me that the registry office wedding was similar in almost every respect to our own civil partnership, nobody missed him upstairs.

[scottycelt]

That doesn't really answer the question except in the sense of more angels being able to dance on the point of this pin than that one. How can you tell whether a "union of separate identities" has actually taken place? And if you can tell, how do you deal with the possibility of it not happening inside a marriage, or it occurring outside of one?

Suppose civil partnerships were available to a man and a woman. You can't deny that the government could allow such a thing if it wished. How would you be able to tell, without looking at the certificate, whether they a couple was married or "merely" in a civil partnership?

I'm not sure I understand your point.

You asked what is the difference between a marriage and a civil partnership? The main, obvious, one I gave as an answer which can hardly be described as not answering the question!

O course I can't tell whether a couple are married, civilly-partnered, or just out on a date simply by looking at them, in the same way as I can't tell whether a car-driver has a licence or not by the length of his/her nose.

Surely that's the whole point of being in possession of certificates?

By separate 'identities' I was referring to separate sexual identities which at present marriage recognises and civil partnerships do not.

[Pabmusic]

...Someone mentioned in passing something about marriage and legal rights. One of the things I note is that this debate is taking off at a time when further tax privileges for married couples are being considered. Although those are not the main reason for it, as the law stands those would exclude financial privileges to gay people...

I'm not sure I agree. The Directgov website makes it clear that:

"Civil partners must be treated the same as married couples on a wide range of legal matters, including:
- tax, including Inheritance Tax
- employment benefits
- most state and occupational pension benefits
- income-related benefits, tax credits and child support
- their duty to provide reasonable maintenance for their civil partner and any children of the family
- ability to apply for parental responsibility for their civil partner's child
- inheritance of tenancy agreements
- protection from domestic violence
- immigration and nationality purposes"

I think it would be far-fetched to think any government would change the tax position to the detriment of civil partners at this particular time.

The Home Office site also makes it clear that the intention is to consider allowing civil marriages, not religious ones. It's the civil marriage that gives the legal rights, of course, which is why all weddings have to have a civil registrar (or authorised person) present. The exceptions are weddings in the CofE, because it's the established church.

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm not sure I agree. The Directgov website makes it clear that....

Pabmusic - Maybe I am wrong then and that the fundamental financial changes have already been made. A policy of tax breaks to promote family life is therefore even more illogical, and hence discriminatory towards single people, than I had thought. To the fact that many heterosexual couples have no family can be added the fact that they would also apply to civil partnerships.

The often ridiculously heavy supplement for single hotel rooms is just one area in which there is blatant prejudice. It has financial implications and no one seems at all bothered. It's a tiny room behind the kitchens with a view over the car park. Definitely treated like a second class citizen. As a trend, it is also very discriminatory towards the elderly.

[salymap]

The 'straight' in your contribution tells us much about how life has changed. Many youngsters would read it and interpret it as "not quite sure" or "ish". Anyone over a certain age knows that is unequivocal. What it denotes is that there are still many who feel that intimacy is intimacy, just a part of life and pretty unassuming. The requirement to self-identify as heterosexual seems somewhat bizarre, overly sexualised and something of an imposition. As you show, such an instinct is not in many cases homophobic. Where heterosexuality has become overtly sexual is a bit ironically in parts of the church where it is very much more than "just is".

Someone mentioned in passing something about marriage and legal rights. One of the things I note is that this debate is taking off at a time when further tax privileges for married couples are being considered. Although those are not the main reason for it, as the law stands those would exclude financial privileges to gay people. Again, then, the institutions are a part of the impetus because in a fair country that wouldn't be acceptable. There are all kinds of economic reasons why the Government would prefer units of two and more rather than one. If and when equality for gay people ever happens, I am of the view that there will be a need for single people of all persuasions to fight very hard to ensure that singles don't become the most discriminated against group of people.

Gosh you do make life complicated. I already feel discriminated against as I have to pay almost a quarter of my state pension in Council Tax, although I get a reduction for living alone.
Regarding saying I am straight, I actually feel like an unmarried widow, if there be such a thing after a long happy relationship with a man. Enough about me

[Pabmusic]

...As a trend, it is also very discriminatory towards the elderly.

Don't I know it!

[scottycelt]

If same-sex marriage becomes law you think that you and your wife will spontaneously change sex? Reassure yourself - it won't happen.

Phew,, I do hope you're right there, but if I tell someone I'm married everyone knows I have a wife ... so no confusion there. If someone tells me they are in a civil partnership, again no confusion.

Whereas if your new friend ,Dave, gets his way it might be one hell of a job trying to separate the Jo's from the Joe's?

Why complicate current simplicity due to a totally bogus 'equality' point?

[Lateralthinking1]

Phew,, I do hope you're right there, but if I tell someone I'm married everyone knows I have a wife ... so no confusion there. If someone tells me they are in a civil partnership, again no confusion. Whereas if your new friend ,Dave, gets his way it might be one hell of a job trying to separate the Jo's from the Joe's? Why complicate current simplicity due to a totally bogus 'equality' point?

The new would involve two sentences rather than one. "I'm married. I have a wife." No different from those who were married. "I was married. I'm now divorced" or "I was married. My husband sadly died."

In the current one sentence, there are in fact two sentences. One is silent. "I am married" and "I'm not gay". It is based on misapprehensions. I am not sure that the silent sentence - even the spoken sentence - should matter much in the office or at the local bowls club.