Scottish government to approve same-sex marriages

[Mary Chambers]

Yes, it's only a label, but I feel passionately that if gay people want that label they should be able to have it. That's equality.

I feel utterly appalled and shocked (but not surprised) that a letter condemning the idea of same-sex marriage is being read out in Catholic churches this morning. I'm surprised it's even legal to discriminate like this, let alone to use terms like 'grotesque subversion', as the cardinal did. Most people I know, gay or straight, would just say "It's the church, what do you expect? Ignore them", but there are gay people in the church who are being told their relationships are second class, as are the rest of the congregation, including children. Outrageous.

Good for Scotland! I hope nothing happens to stop this legislation.

[amateur51]

I singularly fail to see what the fuss is about. There are civil partnerships already, and that is marriage in all but name.
So many people nowadays would rather live together than get married. if they do eventually decide to get married, it is generally an excuse for an obscenely expensive party, usually at someone else's expense, and their lives then continue exactly as before.
or have I missed something?

Good point EA - so in future ALL personal unions, including those we currently call 'marriage' shall be called 'civil unions/partnerships' - how's that? After all that's what equality is about

[salymap]

I have had good friends of all four sexes being fairly broad minded although a 'straight' woman.

The only gay couple I have personally known for 50 years are happy with their relationship of a civil partnership,labels or not, so it's up to the people concerned to fight for what they want. At 80 plus, my friends know they need each other to stay out of a Home or hospital. They really care for each other,that's what counts.

[amateur51]

That is the point - "marriage in all but name"



Yes and no. Everybody who wishes to enter into a legal relationship (& emotional) with another person should be able to use the same term - it doesn't really matter what it is. The only reason that it was called a 'civil partnership' originally was because the churches insisted it shouldn't be called a marriage (& Blair gave in to them). The ceremony also must not contain any religious component. The ceremony of friends was held up because it was to be conducted by a friend, an ordained minister; the Registrar - who had to be present - insisted on checking the complete text, while we were all waiting for it to begin. This was degrading & not something that would happen in a civil marriage, as that may have religious components. The churches are very hung up on the label, & profess to believe that couples of the same sex being able to call the ceremony & the relationship a marriage will devalue the label.

(&, on a lighter (?) note, what do my partner & I say we are - Civily Partnered, rather than Married? Just try it, & you'll realise how daft it sounds).

The legislation in Scotland will allow same-sex marriages to take place in church (or other religious building), if the minister agrees. I think that in England it will not be allowed.

I hope you're not implying that the reason that Churches are getting steamed up about this is that it's a source of significance and prestige for them plus it's a nice little earner. Who'd want to give up a franchise like that?

You're spot on about how daft 'civilly partnered' sounds but I think it's only fair that all married couples should be afforded the same opportunity to be similarly embarrassed, so we abolish marriage & everyone who wants to gets a civil partnership

Yeah, right

[Mary Chambers]

The ceremony also must not contain any religious component. The ceremony of friends was held up because it was to be conducted by a friend, an ordained minister; the Registrar - who had to be present - insisted on checking the complete text, while we were all waiting for it to begin. This was degrading & not something that would happen in a civil marriage, as that may have religious components.

Are you sure of this? I'm sure when my son was married in a civil ceremony some years ago he was told they were not allowed religious elements - not that they wanted any. My own civil marriage was too long ago for me to remember what the rules were.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Please don't get me wrong. In no way am I opposed to the relabelling. But I do get tired of all the whinging by one group or another demanding that they get what they want, however trivial it is in reality.

What makes me much more angry is the "right" to have large families. Then we see a mother of six complaining about how hard done to she is with the high cost of living, with all those mouths to feed. She should have thought about that beforehand, instead of tripling her "share" of CO2 producers.

But I digress.

[Flosshilde]

Are you sure of this? I'm sure when my son was married in a civil ceremony some years ago he was told they were not allowed religious elements - not that they wanted any. My own civil marriage was too long ago for me to remember what the rules were.

I did look ata couple of websites to see if there is any major difference between a marriage/wedding & civil partnership. Very little, but one did say that a civil wedding could include religious elements (presumably a prayer or hymn) if the participants wanted it. & now weddings can take place anywhere, not just in churches, I suppose that some may want a basically religious ceremony but not in a church.

[jean]

...I think it's only fair that all married couples should be afforded the same opportunity to be similarly embarrassed, so we abolish marriage & everyone who wants to gets a civil partnership

Peter Tatchell of course campaigns for both marriage and civil partnership to be available to both gay and straight couples - hence his high-profile marching straight couples up to registry offices and demanding civil partnerships, duly refused.

I can see some merit in the argument, familiar from the 1960s and 70s, that marriage is in its essence a repressive institution. But not much.

[Flosshilde]

Please don't get me wrong. In no way am I opposed to the relabelling. But I do get tired of all the whinging by one group or another demanding that they get what they want, however trivial it is in reality.

The 'label' might be trivial; the issue isn't.

& we're not 'whingeing'

[amateur51]

Peter Tatchell of course campaigns for both marriage and civil partnership to be available to both gay and straight couples - hence his high-profile marching straight couples up to registry offices and demanding civil partnerships, duly refused.

I can see some merit in the argument, familiar from the 1960s and 70s, that marriage is in its essence a repressive institution. But not much.

Ah that takes me back, jean. But some things have changed as a result of steady campaigning but most of the people I know who've 'got hitched' have done so for the tax/property clarity it offers.

[salymap]

Ah that takes me back, jean. But some things have changed as a result of steady campaigning but most of the people I know who've 'got hitched' have done so for the tax/property clarity it offers.

That is so with my old friends - justto know that the house ownership will not cause any problems. It is arelief to all their friends as one partner has Cerebral Palsy and we ALL care about both of them.

[jean]

...but most of the people I know who've 'got hitched' have done so for the tax/property clarity it offers.

I wish you hadn't said that!

I have spent some time in online arguments countering the claim that that's all gay people want - a claim usually accompanied by a suggestion that spinster sisters (though never bachelor brothers, for some reason) should be allowed civil partnerships, too.

[amateur51]

That is so with my old friends - justto know that the house ownership will not cause any problems. It is arelief to all their friends as one partner has Cerebral Palsy and we ALL care about both of them.

Very good salymap

Two gay friends were talking a few years back about how they didn't see the point of the partnership idea and the older one said he was sure that his family would look after the younger one if/when he died. The collective jaw hit the floor and we persuaded him that he could rely on no such thing & that it would be much better for everyone if things were clarified and set out, and that a civil partnership would do just that. They had a modest 'do' & did the partnership and now of course refer to themselves as 'married', which as their relationship has lasted over 40 years is really rather sweet

[jean]

It is not good at all if we allow people to think that's all that matters.

[jean]

In case anyone missed the discussion in the Observer a few weeks ago, between Peter Tatchell and Julie Bindel (an unreconstructed old 70s radical feminist if ever there was one):

...Julie Bindel: David Cameron said: 'I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative, I support it because I'm a conservative' – never a truer word has been said. It is the most conservative struggle we could adopt...

Peter Tatchell: I absolutely share your feminist critique of marriage. I would never personally want to get married. I think it's a deeply heterosexist institution. But as a democrat, I defend the right of people to make the misguided choice to get married, if that is what they wish. I want the right to get married, precisely so I can have the freedom to reject it...