Equal marriage

[Flosshilde]

An excellent programme on last Sunday (repeated from Tuesday

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03yggdf

[amateur51]

Peter Tatchell writes:

"Marriage Act 1949 doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriage

First same-sex marriages take place at midnight on Friday

London, UK - 27 March 2014



“I rejoice that the ban on same-sex marriage in England and Wales is finally being lifted after a campaign for its repeal that lasted 33 years. The ban was imposed for the first time in 1971. Previously, there was no legal prohibition on same-sex marriage.

“The 1949 Marriage Act does not require marriage partners to be male and female. The outlawing of same-sex marriage is a recent and historically brief invention by what was a deeply homophobic political and religious establishment. From 29 March, the ban on same-sex marriage is history. Hurrah!” said Peter Tatchell, Director of the human rights lobby, the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

For more than two decades, he spearheaded the campaign to open up civil marriage to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation - including organising the first challenge to the ban when five same-sex couples from OutRage! filed marriage licence applications at Westminster register office on 19 March 1992. As a leader of the Equal Love campaign, he has also championed the repeal of the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships.

“The government made the legalisation of same-sex marriage needlessly complicated. All it had to do was repeal the legislation banning same-sex marriage. Under the main marriage law, the Marriage Act 1949, there is no legal impediment to the marriage of lesbian and gay couples. They are, by default, allowed to marry,” added Mr Tatchell.

“Instead, David Cameron and Nick Clegg chose the senselessly complicated, convoluted option of legislating a completely new set of marriage laws exclusively for lesbian and gay couples. We now have two separate marriage laws - the Marriage Act 1949 for opposite-sex couples and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 for same-sex couples. This is not equality. It is segregation in law.

“The ban on same-sex marriage was first enacted in the Nullity of Marriage Act 1971. This ban was later incorporated into the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. All the government needed to do to ensure marriage equality was repeal the 1973 Act and amend some secondary legislation. That would have been the simplest, cheapest, fairest and most principled way to ensure equal marriage for all.

“Speaking personally, I would not want to get married. I share the feminist critique. Marriage has an unseemly sexist, patriarchal history. But as a democrat, I defend the right of others to get married if they wish. I believe we should all be equal before the law; that homophobic discrimination is wrong and should be overturned. Banning LGBT people from marriage was anti-gay discrimination. That’s why I fought to overturn it, despite my own personal reservations about the institution of marriage,” said Mr Tatchell."

[ahinton]

Peter Tatchell writes:

"Marriage Act 1949 doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriage

First same-sex marriages take place at midnight on Friday

London, UK - 27 March 2014



“I rejoice that the ban on same-sex marriage in England and Wales is finally being lifted after a campaign for its repeal that lasted 33 years. The ban was imposed for the first time in 1971. Previously, there was no legal prohibition on same-sex marriage.

“The 1949 Marriage Act does not require marriage partners to be male and female. The outlawing of same-sex marriage is a recent and historically brief invention by what was a deeply homophobic political and religious establishment. From 29 March, the ban on same-sex marriage is history. Hurrah!” said Peter Tatchell, Director of the human rights lobby, the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

For more than two decades, he spearheaded the campaign to open up civil marriage to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation - including organising the first challenge to the ban when five same-sex couples from OutRage! filed marriage licence applications at Westminster register office on 19 March 1992. As a leader of the Equal Love campaign, he has also championed the repeal of the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships.

“The government made the legalisation of same-sex marriage needlessly complicated. All it had to do was repeal the legislation banning same-sex marriage. Under the main marriage law, the Marriage Act 1949, there is no legal impediment to the marriage of lesbian and gay couples. They are, by default, allowed to marry,” added Mr Tatchell.

“Instead, David Cameron and Nick Clegg chose the senselessly complicated, convoluted option of legislating a completely new set of marriage laws exclusively for lesbian and gay couples. We now have two separate marriage laws - the Marriage Act 1949 for opposite-sex couples and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 for same-sex couples. This is not equality. It is segregation in law.

“The ban on same-sex marriage was first enacted in the Nullity of Marriage Act 1971. This ban was later incorporated into the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. All the government needed to do to ensure marriage equality was repeal the 1973 Act and amend some secondary legislation. That would have been the simplest, cheapest, fairest and most principled way to ensure equal marriage for all.

“Speaking personally, I would not want to get married. I share the feminist critique. Marriage has an unseemly sexist, patriarchal history. But as a democrat, I defend the right of others to get married if they wish. I believe we should all be equal before the law; that homophobic discrimination is wrong and should be overturned. Banning LGBT people from marriage was anti-gay discrimination. That’s why I fought to overturn it, despite my own personal reservations about the institution of marriage,” said Mr Tatchell."

I have to confess to my ignorance about the Marriage Act of 1949 not having prohibited same-sex marriage - not to mention my surprise that it did not do so - but, assuming Mr Tatchell to be correct both in this and in his statement that the Nullity of Marriage Act overturned the right to same-sex marriage enshrined in the 1949 Act more than two decades earlier, one cannot help but wonder why no applications for same-sex marriage ever appear to have been granted during those 22 years; were no such applications ever made? or were any applications that were made refused in spite of such refusal being in contravention of the 1949 Act?

It's difficult not to agree with Mr Tatchell that the current existence of the 1949 Act as amended by the 1971 one (now for the benefit of opposite sex couples only) alongside the new Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (for the benefit of same-sex ones) smacks of segregation rather than equality; likewise, I do not doubt his view that the introduction of the new Act last year has also introduced unnecessary complication.

Speaking of unnecessary complication, however, what I'm not so clear about is why the 1971 Act - which, according to him, sounds to have been a standalone piece of legislation - was implemented at that time for the presumed purpose of overturning the right to same-sex marrage as provided in the 1949 Act when it would surely have been far simpler just to amend the 1949 Act by removing from its provisions the right to same-sex marriage. I have also to admit that I do not recall any backlash about this in 1971 or indeed anything much being said about it at or around that timke, which ought to be surprising since its provisions were so fundamental. Can you throw any light on this?

[jean]

Seriously, I don't think there ever was a 'right' to same-sex marriage - it's just that no-one ever thought about it, so it wasn't specifically prohibited until people actually began to take the ideal seriously.

I am afraid I find Peter Tatchell very irritating on this topic. Clearly the whole idea of civil partnerships was a fudge, but the best we could hope for at the time, and the idea of extending civil partnerships to straight couples is just stupid.

If OH and I ever did convert our CP into a marriage, it would only be by way of a declaration that we always considered ourselves married anyway.

[amateur51]

Seriously, I don't think there ever was a 'right' to same-sex marriage - it's just that no-one ever thought about it, so it wasn't specifically prohibited until people actually began to take the ideal seriously.

I am afraid I find Peter Tatchell very irritating on this topic. Clearly the whole idea of civil partnerships was a fudge, but the best we could hope for at the time, and the idea of extending civil partnerships to straight couples is just stupid.

If OH and I ever did convert our CP into a marriage, it would only be by way of a declaration that we always considered ourselves married anyway.

You are not alone in this jean, which is why the original opposition was doomed to failure

[Sydney Grew]

It is desirable is it not that one of the Royal Princes should now enter into a marriage with some one of his own sex, as an example and an encouragement to us all. And what about the forgotten multitude of Britain's troilists - are they to remain in the "too hard" basket?

[ahinton]

It is desirable is it not that one of the Royal Princes should now enter into a marriage with some one of his own sex, as an example and an encouragement to us all.

Why, for heaven's sake?! It is desirable, is it not, that any one of the Royal Princes should marry only if, as and when they so choose and that the choices of partner should be theirs alone and not determined to any degree by some perceived need to act as "an example and an encouragement to" anyone?!

[amateur51]

Why, for heaven's sake?! It is desirable, is it not, that any one of the Royal Princes should marry only if, as and when they so choose and that the choices of partner should be theirs alone and not determined to any degree by some perceived need to act as "an example and an encouragement to" anyone?!

You are suggesting a significant break with 'tradition' ahinton.

The lad first in line has always had to get married to someone of the opposite sex, who is both a virgin and fertile, and sons are the top priority where progeny is concerned. The questions of compatability & choice don't always enter into it as the case of Chas & Di demonstrated amply. How the gender balance is affected by recent legislative changes I'm not too clear.

Back to the drawing board.

[ahinton]

You are suggesting a significant break with 'tradition' ahinton.

If so, not before time! Why such proscriptive measures affecting the rights of royals in respect of marriage persist today I have no idea.

[MrGongGong]

And in music news
Nicholas Daniel got married today
so congratulations Nick xx

(hope the wrath of satan doesn't affect the oboe playing)

[Ferretfancy]

Why, for heaven's sake?! It is desirable, is it not, that any one of the Royal Princes should marry only if, as and when they so choose and that the choices of partner should be theirs alone and not determined to any degree by some perceived need to act as "an example and an encouragement to" anyone?!

Agreed, ahinton, but might their not be a tiny possibility that the girl friend or partner might have a small part in the choice?

[ahinton]

Agreed, ahinton, but might their not be a tiny possibility that the girl friend or partner might have a small part in the choice?

Of course! - and that was part of the very point that I sought to make and should indeed have made clearer, for which omission you have rightly taken me to task! I was referring to choice on both sides, of course, not just that of the royal concerned - in other words, decision about marriages should be left at all times to those proposing to marry, not to outside interference of any kind.

[Pulcinella]

In all the discussion about marriage versus CP, I have not noticed mention of one benefit that would immediately ensue, and which might be a good reason to 'upgrade' when it becomes possible.
My partner does a fair bit of international travel, possibly later this year to Kazakhstan, but fairly recently to India. Even if there were a box to tick for CP in a visa application, that immediately says something about his sexuality, which is not necessarily advisable in such countries. I think he will choose to be single. To be able to tick the married box would be a boon. I seem to remember that for one application he was able to be 'other', which amused us greatly!

[Sydney Grew]

Of course! . . . decision about marriages should be left at all times to those proposing to marry, not to outside interference of any kind.

Why is that? What could the principle behind that extraordinary idea possibly be? Surely not the now discredited nineteen-twenties cinematic principle of "romantic love"? What does the Church tell us?

[ahinton]

Why is that? What could the principle behind that extraordinary idea possibly be? Surely not the now discredited nineteen-twenties cinematic principle of "romantic love"? What does the Church tell us?

I didn't even suggest what motives there should be for marriage; I simply pointed out that all entreis into marriage should be decided upon by those participating in it and no one else - that applies as much to same sex marriages as it does to opposite sex ones. The principle behind what I wrote was that marriage is and should be between two people who wish to marry one another and, accordingly, no third party/ies should influence, let alone determine, whether or not, where or under what circumstances such marriage takes place.

Simples.

Without wishing to sound rude or presumptuous, though, might I question why you would be at all concerned about such matters in any case when you have already made it clear that you have no interest in or respect for the institution of marriage?

By the way - FF - couldn't this thread be merged with the Clegg one as "Equal Farage"?...