Should 'Marriage' be re-defined

[Pabmusic]

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

If this is so, then the present controversy boils down to words, doesn't it? One side wants to use the word "marriage" instead of "civil partnership", the other fears that that will happen and that traditional meaning of "marriage" will be corrupted because of it. Not that anyone will gain or lose out in a practical sense. Doesn't that seem just a little pathetic?

[MrGongGong]

I'm not sure of the exact legal position
BUT
in some countries the legal position of a civil partnership is NOT recognised so that ones partner is not deemed to be next-of kin in the event of death etc this (and again i'm not sure of the exact details ) also applies to the status of children.

some good points here I think

https://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/philip-hensher/philip-hensher-against-gay-marriage-too-late-its-already-here-7575729.html

particularly

"In recent days, opponents of the gay marriage proposal have argued that we need to have a debate about the nature of marriage. Clearly, we are having this debate, and have been having it for centuries. On this point, the debate is concluded, and the opponents of gay marriage have lost. They have also said, in chorus, that they have nothing against gay people: indeed, they think gay people are splendid, and that civil partnerships ought to be enough for them.

This claim would be more convincing if these people could indicate a single historic occasion when they have supported the award of a small fragment of civil liberties to gay people. From the Wolfenden report through the 1967 Act through the right to serve in the military to the creation of civil partnerships, churches and politicians have argued exactly the same thing: gay people don't deserve it, and they will destroy the civilisation of "normal" people. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now: not only wrong, but, in many cases, dissimulating their real attitude."

[John Skelton]

No, as you well know, but I'm now looking at the matter through purely secular eyes, which I'd have thought you might have appreciated.

I also note that you obviously don't give one jot for equality of heterosexuals and homosexuals under the law, if these plans go ahead ...

I don't give one jot for your phoney concern for equality under the law, no. I'm all in favour of civil partnership being an option for everyone. Oh, look - so are other people http://equallove.org.uk/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/nov/08/heterosexuals-attempt-civil-partnership

[John Skelton]

From a quick Google, this concern for equal rights for heterosexual couples in the matter of civil partnerships seems to be spreading like wildfire among opponents of same-sex marriage.

As a concerned heterosexual I've taken a look to see which groups supporting same-sex marriage oppose civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. But I can't find any. On the other hand, I can imagine other groups - the Catholic Church say - opposing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples on the grounds that it would undermine marriage. Which would produce a curious situation whereby people who believe in marriage aren't allowed to marry, and people who don't believe in marriage aren't not allowed to marry (unless they are prepared to give up the various state guaranteed benefits designed to shore up the institution of marriage).

Hmm.

[Mary Chambers]

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.

[MrGongGong]

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

As Philip Hensher points out many people with civil partnerships ARE regarded as married, and refer to themselves as such even if some homophobic man in a frock says otherwise. I'm not so insecure to think that this will "undermine" my heterosexual marriage.........

[Lateralthinking1]

Many people already get married in churches because a church ceremony looks pretty and is often seen to have more status than a civil ceremony.

Had the churches insisted up till now that church weddings were only for church people. Had people who are opposed to religion remained steadfastly true to their beliefs and not been married in church.

Well, the current conundrums wouldn't have been created.

[amateur51]

Some very sensible and supportive posts here,full of insight, for which much genuine thanks

However those from the stubborn wing serve only to remind me that those with power and privilege (and let's not pretend that this is about anything other than power) will never consent to give their power up - it has to be wrenched from their grasping paws.

A shame but there it is.

[Mary Chambers]

Indeed, Mr GG. And half a century before the concept of civil partnerships, Benjamin Britten referred to himself and Pears as a 'married couple' in letters in the early 1940s.

The media have highlighted some astonishing fears from those who oppose equal marriage. Not only a fear that the concept of marriage will be devalued or undermined, but a fear that humanity will die out if gay marriage is allowed, because obviously when homosexuality is entirely accepted, many more people will be homosexual! The 'logic' of this one defeats me.

[scottycelt]

I don't give one jot for your phoney concern for equality under the law, no. I'm all in favour of civil partnership being an option for everyone. Oh, look - so are other people http://equallove.org.uk/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...il-partnership

Whether you give one jot for the sincerely-held views of a significant proportion of the population or not, I take it that even you now apparently concede that if the current law regarding marriage is 'homophobic' then the present law on civil partnerships must be equally and logically termed 'heterophobic' ? It is possibly significant in this 'equality' debate that my politically-correct computer dictionary doesn't even recognise the latter as a word, unlike the former ...

Many of us fail to see where one side is currently any more discriminated against than the other ... both simply go their separate ways and lead their lives as they see fit ,,, what's 'unreasonable' about that? ... where's the much-vaunted social 'inequality' here? .

[amateur51]

Many of us ...

How many and of what/whom does 'us' comprise, pray?

You done a survey, have you scotty?

[scottycelt]

Are you seriously suggesting I may be the only poor soul "unconvinced" about the introduction of 'gay marriage' in the UK, Ams ... ?

[John Skelton]

Whether you give one jot for the sincerely-held views of a significant proportion of the population or not, I take it that even you now apparently concede that if the current law regarding marriage is 'homophobic' then the present law on civil partnerships must be equally and logically termed 'heterophobic' ? It is possibly significant in this 'equality' debate that my politically-correct computer dictionary doesn't even recognise the latter as a word, unlike the former ...

I said "one jot for your phoney concern for equality under the law", scottycelt. Unless you have become multitudes I don't see that you are a "significant proportion of the population." The whole point about the inequality which same-sex marriage would introduce and which so exercises you is that it is an inequality which supporters of same-sex marriage oppose.

The Equal Love campaign aims to challenge the twin bans on gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, with eight couples filing applications at register offices and then, when they are refused, bringing a joint legal action in the courts to secure a change in the law.

The campaign is being organised by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights organisation OutRage!

Starting on Tuesday 2 November, eight couples will file applications at their local register offices. Four same-sex couples will apply for civil marriages and four heterosexual couples will apply for civil partnerships. Every week until 14 December, one couple will make an application. If the couples are turned away, as we expect they will be, we plan to take legal action. Denying them equal treatment is contrary to the Human Rights Act.

Our legal team will argue in the courts that the bans on gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships are an unlawful and unjustified discrimination. In a democracy, gay and straight couples should be equal before the law.

Both civil marriages and civil partnerships should be open to everyone without discrimination.

Opposition to civil partnerships for heterosexual couples would come from the defenders of the status quo with regard to marriage: who would see it as 'yet another' undermining of the institution. Which would create a situation where same-sex couples who believe in marriage would be told it's not for them and heterosexual couples who don't believe in marriage would be penalised by the state unless they went through a specific marriage ceremony of one kind or another (would I be correct in thinking that as far as you are concerned a registry office marriage is legally a marriage but isn't fully a marriage? Or ditto a marriage outside the Catholic Church?)

The inequality is not the fault of campaigners for same-sex marriage, because they are also campaigners for equal rights over civil partnerships. It would be the fault of pressure groups demanding that marriage be 'upheld' (curiously, for such a desirable thing, it seems to require all sorts of prohibitions to stop people finding it undesirable. Unless they are the 'wrong sort of people', of course).

"both simply go their separate ways and lead their lives as they see fit ...." It's you who is stopping people doing that; the proposal is not that churches be required to perform same-sex marriages, only that they can. And that there be the same marriage rights for all people who are married by the state.

So you are complaining about an inequality which would be the product of a viewpoint you support, not that of one you oppose? And you want to stop a group of people who believe in marriage from marrying on the grounds that their doing so prevents you living your life as you see fit?

[amateur51]

Are you seriously suggesting I may be the only poor soul "unconvinced" about the introduction of 'gay marriage' in the UK, Ams ... ?

I asked for names & numbers, scotty.

So far there's the usual suspects (you and your spouse of the female persuasion, under duress, plus Borgia the cat) and that's it

[scottycelt]

I said "one jot for your phoney concern for equality under the law", scottycelt. Unless you have become multitudes I don't see that you are a "significant proportion of the population." The whole point about the inequality which same-sex marriage would introduce and which so exercises you is that it is an inequality which supporters of same-sex marriage oppose.

The Equal Love campaign aims to challenge the twin bans on gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, with eight couples filing applications at register offices and then, when they are refused, bringing a joint legal action in the courts to secure a change in the law.

The campaign is being organised by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights organisation OutRage!

Starting on Tuesday 2 November, eight couples will file applications at their local register offices. Four same-sex couples will apply for civil marriages and four heterosexual couples will apply for civil partnerships. Every week until 14 December, one couple will make an application. If the couples are turned away, as we expect they will be, we plan to take legal action. Denying them equal treatment is contrary to the Human Rights Act.

Our legal team will argue in the courts that the bans on gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships are an unlawful and unjustified discrimination. In a democracy, gay and straight couples should be equal before the law.

Both civil marriages and civil partnerships should be open to everyone without discrimination.

Opposition to civil partnerships for heterosexual couples would come from the defenders of the status quo with regard to marriage: who would see it as 'yet another' undermining of the institution. Which would create a situation where same-sex couples who believe in marriage would be told it's not for them and heterosexual couples who don't believe in marriage would be penalised by the state unless they went through a specific marriage ceremony of one kind or another (would I be correct in thinking that as far as you are concerned a registry office marriage is legally a marriage but isn't fully a marriage? Or ditto a marriage outside the Catholic Church?)

The inequality is not the fault of campaigners for same-sex marriage, because they are also campaigners for equal rights over civil partnerships. It would be the fault of pressure groups demanding that marriage be 'upheld' (curiously, for such a desirable thing, it seems to require all sorts of prohibitions to stop people finding it undesirable. Unless they are the 'wrong sort of people', of course).

"both simply go their separate ways and lead their lives as they see fit ...." It's you who is stopping people doing that; the proposal is not that churches be required to perform same-sex marriages, only that they can. And that there be the same marriage rights for all people who are married by the state.

So you are complaining about an inequality which would be the product of a viewpoint you support, not that of one you oppose? And you want to stop a group of people who believe in marriage from marrying on the grounds that their doing so prevents you living your life as you see fit?

Sorry for copying the whole message, but we musn't pick 'n' choose, eh ... ?

I'm not the one complaining about the status quo. 'Gay Lobby' pressure-groups and their supporters do enough of that for "all of us".

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!

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 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.

I promise you, I have no wish to interfere in the lives of homosexuals who wish to avail themselves with civil partnerships in official recognition of their sexuality.

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?