Gay marriage thread

[MrGongGong]

We are talking about the law of England & Wales, not that of France, Mr GG ...

Laws are different in all countries whether it concerns tax, marriage, civil partnerships or anything else.

Are you suggesting the English and Welsh should frame their laws simply to suit the French?

Not at all
BUT it illustrates why gay parents (for example) need to have the protection of being Married as opposed to having a relationship that is not widely recognised

From 1837, marriages could take place in a local register office, instead of a church, these have no link to any religion and never have done.

Apart from the fact that the church and the state ARE linked
if there was no connection why would the churches be so up in arms about something that doesn't concern them ?

[scottycelt]

What I was referring to (as well you know!) was the source of this definition and I take yours to be broadly of religious origin (and sit corrected if you can tell me that this is not so). Definitions change over time just as language changes and, as marriage is a legal contract, a change in the law (or, more properly in this case, an expansion of the law) means a change in how that contract is defined, albeit more in terms of who may enter into it than what its terms and conditions are.

How many sources would you like, ahinton ... ?

Here's one for starters ...

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage

Whilst definitions of some words may change through time those signifying states (as in situations) cannot possibly. In other words (no pun intended) the meaning of cold cannot suddenly be altered to include mild, for example. That would render both words meaningless as marriage which included gays would render husband and wife similarly meaningless.

Marriage means husband + wife. I see no earthly reason why a new word cannot be devised to signify the official relationship of man + man/woman + woman or one for both if that is considered more practical and desirable.

I cannot think of anything more truly equitable, yet providing each group with their own space free from the suffocating diktat of people with clear political (and religious) agendas.

[Pabmusic]

...Apart from the fact that the church and the state ARE linked
if there was no connection why would the churches be so up in arms about something that doesn't concern them ?

No, marriage before a registrar is not connected to any church. You are right that we have an established church (C of E) but they have no connexion with Registrars. The only 'benefit' the C of E gets is that its priests are counted as 'registrars' for the purpose of the 1837 Act. All other churches, of whatever faith, must include the civil element in their ceremonies, and must have a civil registrar in attendance (I think there are some conventions about what constitutes 'attendance', but all ceremonies have the moment when the parties sign the register - that's required under the 1837 Act).

[MrGongGong]

The only 'benefit' the C of E gets is that its priests are counted as 'registrars' for the purpose of the 1837 Act.

So that's no connection then ?
About time this was changed methinks
I never said it was connected to a particular church BUT the fact that there IS an "established" one makes a nonsense of the separation
and gives far too much weight to the views of the church in matters that shouldn't concern them at all.

[amateur51]

How many sources would you like, ahinton ... ?

Here's one for starters ...

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage

Whilst definitions of some words may change through time those signifying states (as in situations) cannot possibly. In other words (no pun intended) the meaning of cold cannot suddenly be altered to include mild, for example. That would render both words meaningless as marriage which included gays would render husband and wife similarly meaningless.

Marriage means husband + wife. I see no earthly reason why a new word cannot be devised to signify the official relationship of man + man/woman + woman or one for both if that is considered more practical and desirable.

I cannot think of anything more truly equitable, yet providing each group with their own space free from the suffocating diktat of people with clear political (and religious) agendas.

What scotty et al don't seem to understand is that this proposal has a dual purpose.

The first one is obvious and it is to 'right' an inequality.

The second purpose is to 'normalise' lesbian and gay relationships cynically to secure votes for the Tory party. Not going to happen, I hear you cry. Well my MP, Sarah Teather, has enjoyed my support ever since she spoke up against the invasion of Iraq at a by-election. I wrote congratulating her when she voted againsat the recent welfare changes. She voted against equal marriage and I shall not vote for her again unless she provides me with a good reason for so doing. I suspect that her reason is that her constituency contains a sizeable Muslim presence and she has a modest majority... but I could be wrong

[amateur51]

How many sources would you like, ahinton ... ?

Here's one for starters ...

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage

Whilst definitions of some words may change through time those signifying states (as in situations) cannot possibly. In other words (no pun intended) the meaning of cold cannot suddenly be altered to include mild, for example. That would render both words meaningless as marriage which included gays would render husband and wife similarly meaningless.

Marriage means husband + wife. I see no earthly reason why a new word cannot be devised to signify the official relationship of man + man/woman + woman or one for both if that is considered more practical and desirable.

I cannot think of anything more truly equitable, yet providing each group with their own space free from the suffocating diktat of people with clear political (and religious) agendas.

Scotty, this is a massive smokescreen as you well know.

Put the dictionary back under the wobbly table & start addressing the real issues

[Pabmusic]

So that's no connection then ?
About time this was changed methinks
I never said it was connected to a particular church BUT the fact that there IS an "established" one makes a nonsense of the separation
and gives far too much weight to the views of the church in matters that shouldn't concern them at all.

This is a different argument. It's well known we have an established church; a certain number of bishops, plus the two archbishops, sit in the House of Lords. Disestablishment was last debated (I think) in 1922 - perhaps it's time to revisit it, but it's hardly relevant to this issue because the HL has lost much influence since WW2.

[MrGongGong]

This is a different argument. It's well known we have an established church; a certain number of bishops, plus the two archbishops, sit in the House of Lords. Disestablishment was last debated (I think) in 1922 - perhaps it's time to revisit it, but it's hardly relevant to this issue because the HL has lost much influence since WW2.

I don't think its a different argument at all
because the church being part of the very vocal opposition to equal marriage use establishment as a legitimisation of their right to have influence on things that don't affect them directly.

[amateur51]

This is a different argument. It's well known we have an established church; a certain number of bishops, plus the two archbishops, sit in the House of Lords. Disestablishment was last debated (I think) in 1922 - perhaps it's time to revisit it, but it's hardly relevant to this issue because the HL has lost much influence since WW2.

I think the business managers of all parties would say thank goodness for that and point out how awkward their Lordships can still make life for the Commoners, Pabs

[Pabmusic]

I think the business managers of all parties would say thank goodness for that and point out how awkward their Lordships can still make life for the Commoners, Pabs

Oh yes, Ams - I didn't say they'd no influence at all. It's just that I have no fear that the C of E is listened to in the way it was (say) at the time of the abdication crisis.

[amateur51]

Oh yes, Ams - I didn't say they'd no influence at all. It's just that I have no fear that the C of E is listened to in the way it was (say) at the time of the abdication crisis.

Good point, Pabs but then the current stramash is of a very different order, I would suggest

[Stephen Whitaker]

What scotty et al don't seem to understand is that this proposal has a dual purpose.

The first one is obvious and it is to 'right' an inequality.

The second purpose is to 'normalise' lesbian and gay relationships cynically to secure votes for the Tory party. Not going to happen, I hear you cry. Well my MP, Sarah Teather, has enjoyed my support ever since she spoke up against the invasion of Iraq at a by-election. I wrote congratulating her when she voted againsat the recent welfare changes. She voted against equal marriage and I shall not vote for her again unless she provides me with a good reason for so doing. I suspect that her reason is that her constituency contains a sizeable Muslim presence and she has a modest majority... but I could be wrong

She did it because she's a Catholic; her constituency probably has as many Hindus as Muslims.

http://protectthepope.com/?p=6679

[ahinton]

As the law stands heterosexuals are barred from entering Civil Partnerships. According to Mr Cameron, 'there are no plans to change the current law regarding Civil Partnerships'.

Thank you for this quote; so in fact there are plans to overhaul it completely, then?(!)...

bisexuals would have to choose one way or the other the gender of their partner (quite obviously)

Well, no, not literally; they can choose of which gender their partner is to be but they cannot choose that person's gender as such; OK, that's pedantic, I know, but...

and therefore in the eyes of the law they would be in either an official heterosexual or homosexual relationship. Accordingly there should be no confusion, rather it might tend to resolve their current ambiguity!

True, but the point that I sought to imply is that, as the law has now freed a bisexual person free to marry someone of either gender, some might end up marrying someone of the same sex and later (following divorce or bereavement) someone of the opposite sex or vice versa.

[ahinton]

How many sources would you like, ahinton ... ?

Here's one for starters ...

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage

Whilst definitions of some words may change through time those signifying states (as in situations) cannot possibly. In other words (no pun intended) the meaning of cold cannot suddenly be altered to include mild, for example. That would render both words meaningless as marriage which included gays would render husband and wife similarly meaningless.

Marriage means husband + wife. I see no earthly reason why a new word cannot be devised to signify the official relationship of man + man/woman + woman or one for both if that is considered more practical and desirable.

I cannot think of anything more truly equitable, yet providing each group with their own space free from the suffocating diktat of people with clear political (and religious) agendas.

"Cold" and "mild" are comparatives; "husband" and "wife" are not. I can see where you're coming from in principle, but the problem here would be that not only the term "marriage" but also the terms "husband" and "wife" and perhaps also "fiancé/e" and "widow/er" - as well as "civil partnership" - might all have to shift some definitional ground. Language finds its own solutions over time as it changes.

[amateur51]

She did it because she's a Catholic; her constituency probably has as many Hindus as Muslims.
http://protectthepope.com/?p=6679

Good point and it was a free vote. I'll be interested to see what she says