Equal marriage

[amateur51]

Now that equal marriage has been sorted out in England & Wales, should attention now be turned towards sorting out civil partnerships?

Peter Tatchell writes:

"Save Civil Partnerships. Extend them to straights

April 17 deadline for responses to government consultation

THANK YOU for helping win same-sex marriage, now.....

Support civil marriage & civil partnership equality for all

London, UK - 2 April 2014


“The government is considering abolishing all civil partnerships and converting them into marriages, regardless of what existing civil partner couples want. It is also considering retaining existing civil partnerships but refusing any new ones. The other government option is to keep civil partnerships and make them available to opposite-sex couples, as well as to same-sex ones,” said Peter Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

He was commenting on the government’s public consultation on the future of civil partnerships, which closes on 17 April.

“We’ve won same-sex-marriage thanks to your much valued support. But some LGBT and straight people don’t like the sexist and homophobic traditions of marriage. They’d prefer a civil partnership; believing it to be more equal and without the historical baggage that goes with matrimony. They should have the choice of a civil partnership if they wish. Marriage should not be the only option. Couples should not be forced to marry to get legal recognition and rights.

“We should adopt the popular Dutch system of opening up civil partnerships to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

“To save and extend civil partnerships we need your help. So far, very few individuals and organisations have responded to the government consultation. We risk losing civil partnerships by our inaction,” said Mr Tatchell.

These are our views on the three government options:


REJECT - Abolishing the legal relationship of civil partnership and converting existing civil partnerships into marriages
REJECT - Stopping new civil partnerships being registered, but retaining existing ones
SUPPORT - Retaining and opening up civil partnership to opposite-sex couples


Please respond to the government’s civil partnership consultation by completing this online survey by 17 April: http://bit.ly/1gfWpm8

Read the government’s civil partnership consultation document, which sets out the pros and cons: http://bit.ly/1ohxjgz

Peter Tatchell writes:

“It is very important that we make submissions supporting the retention of civil partnerships and for them to be available to all couples who want one, including both LGBT and heterosexual partners.

“In a democratic society we should all be equal before the law. The ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships is unjust discrimination.

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to equal treatment and protection against discrimination.

“Legalising same -sex marriage was the recognition that LGBT people are of equal worth, equal love and have the right to equal treatment in law.

“The same principle of equality applies in the case of civil partnerships. Heterosexual couples should be able to have a civil partnership if they wish.

“Many heterosexuals supported the campaigns for same-sex marriage. We should reciprocate by supporting their right to a civil partnership.

“By participating in the public consultation we can let the government know that we want equality in both civil marriage and civil partnership law. Help us send a message for universal equal rights,” said Mr Tatchell.

Further information:

Peter Tatchell, Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation
0207 403 1790
Email: Peter@PeterTatchellFoundation.org
Website: www.PeterTatchellFoundation.org

ENDS"

[vinteuil]

... now that anyone can get married I really ca'n't see the point of Civil Partnerships, which were just a stepping stone on the way to full gay marriage, a sop to those who were afraid of the word 'marriage' being available to gay men and women.

When I got married it was a secular ceremony in a Register Office. Neither of us (lapsed catholics) wanted anything religious. It seems to me that that civil, secular, complete formalisation of our relationship - which is now available to straight or gay people - contains everything that a "Civil Partnership" might embrace.

What is the problem?

[jean]

... now that anyone can get married I really ca'n't see the point of Civil Partnerships, which were just a stepping stone on the way to full gay marriage, a sop to those who were afraid of the word 'marriage' being available to gay men and women...

You are absolutely right. I said earlier in this thread (#4 I think) that on this topic, Peter Tatchell is a mere irritant.

His problem is that he retains the old feminist idea of marriage being a patriarchal institution designed to subjugate women. Indeed throughout most of history it could be seen as just that. But most of us have moved on in the last forty years, and so has marriage.

I wish he would just shut up.

(PS: love that ca'n't.)

[ahinton]

You are absolutely right. I said earlier in this thread (#4 I think) that on this topic, Peter Tatchell is a mere irritant.

His problem is that he retains the old feminist idea of marriage being a patriarchal institution designed to subjugate women. Indeed throughout most of history it could be seen as just that. But most of us have moved on in the last forty years, and so has marriage.

I wish he would just shut up.

If indeed it is the case that Mr Tatchell has a view of the very institution of marriage that might be argued to harbour a similar kind of disdain and contempt for it as does that of our Member Sydney Grew, it would indeed be less than unreasonable to suggest that each has little to say about it that could be regarded as helpful and constructive.

[jean]

Supposing it had been possible to achieve marriage for same-sex couples ten years ago without going through an intermediate stage that wouldn't frighten the horses, would Peter Tatchell still have demanded an alternative institution?

Of course he wouldn't.

[Sydney Grew]

Peter Tatchell is a mere irritant...most of us have moved on in the last forty years, and so has marriage.

If . . . Mr[.] Tatchell has a view . . . that might . . . harbour . . . similar . . . disdain . . . as . . . that of . . . [Mr.] Grew, . . .

Well! Some laggardly stick-in-the-muds here! If "moving on" is the great thing let us move on with a vengeance! The truth is that the admirable Mr. Tatchell and I are the prophets and heroes of the modern world. After a further forty years have passed homo-sexualism will thanks to us and our like at last have become a moral necessity and "marriage" a quaint unimaginative remnant only any longer practised in the highlands of Wales and Scotland - rather like the consumption of raw fish to-day among the Netherlanders. Where is your initiative Mr. H?

[ahinton]

Well! Some laggardly stick-in-the-muds here!

Since the only people mentioned in the quotation from me to which the above was posted as a response ae Mr. Tatchell and you, then I defer to your descriptor of both as "laggardly stick-in-the-muds".

If "moving on" is the great thing let us move on with a vengeance!

What price "vengeance" in a discussion of relationships involving commitment between pairs of members of the opposite sex and the same sex?

The truth is that the admirable Mr. Tatchell and I are the prophets and heroes of the modern world.

Your arrogance does you proud!

After a further forty years have passed homo-sexualism will thanks to us and our like at last have become a moral necessity

Why "a further forty"? - espeially when homosexuality (NOT "homo-sexualism", please!) has already come to be regarded and accepted by the majority of people as a "moral necessity" for homosexual men and women...

and "marriage" a quaint unimaginative remnant only any longer practised in the highlands of Wales and Scotland

What on earth leads you to believe that this will be the case? - and, perhaps more importantly, why do you appear to presume that homosexuality will eventually somehow take the place of marriage in society?

Where is your initiative Mr. H?

I have no idea why I should be supposed to have an "initiative" per se here, but my views, which I do have, will be clear from various contributions that I have made to this thread, not least the above response to your latest post; were I to have such an "initiative", however, I imagine that it would cut little if any ice with you, since I am not a homosexual.

[jean]

I suppose everyone's seen this?

[Serial_Apologist]

Amazing jean - the World of Technology, always said to be so far ahead of personal ethocs and moralities.

[Sydney Grew]

Wrestling Welby and the Wriggling Bishops

Here is what the Church tells us.

1) Wrestling Welby:

Archbishop Welby this week told the country that he 'Wrestles every day and often in the middle of the night.'' This in reference to the marriage of those homo-sexualistally inclined. How it occupies his mind! And why should that be?

2) And here not so much a wrestle as a wriggle:

"While committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual persons, the Church of England will not be allowing the blessing of same-sex unions. When the Act comes into force in March it will continue not to be legally possible for two persons of the same sex to marry according to the rites of the Church of England. In addition the Act makes clear that any rights and duties which currently exist in relation to being married in Church of England churches do not extend to same-sex couples," the House of Bishops has stated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10745664/Gay-marriage-catastrophic-for-African-Christians-Archbishop.html

http://www.christianpost.com/news/archbishop-of-canberbury-on-gay-marriage-in-uk-church-has-accepted-that-its-the-law-117002

[amateur51]

Here is what the Church tells us.

1) Wrestling Welby:

Archbishop Welby this week told the country that he 'Wrestles every day and often in the middle of the night.'' This in reference to the marriage of those homo-sexualistally inclined. How it occupies his mind! And why should that be?

2) And here not so much a wrestle as a wriggle:

"While committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual persons, the Church of England will not be allowing the blessing of same-sex unions. When the Act comes into force in March it will continue not to be legally possible for two persons of the same sex to marry according to the rites of the Church of England. In addition the Act makes clear that any rights and duties which currently exist in relation to being married in Church of England churches do not extend to same-sex couples," the House of Bishops has stated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10745664/Gay-marriage-catastrophic-for-African-Christians-Archbishop.html

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ar...the-law-117002

Time to abolish the charitable status of the Church of England, I'd suggest, on the basis of these remarks.

As Beecham once remarked about something else, "that'll make the buggers jump!"

[jean]

But if Welby is right about this, what should he do?

African Christians will be killed if the Church of England accepts gay marriage, the archbishop of Canterbury has suggested. Speaking on an LBC phone in, Justin Welby said he had stood by a mass grave in Nigeria of 330 Christians who had been massacred by neighbours who had justified the atrocity by saying: "If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians."

"I have stood by gravesides in Africa of a group of Christians who had been attacked because of something that had happened in America. We have to listen to that. We have to be aware of the fact," Welby said. If the Church of England celebrated gay marriages, he added, "the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic. Everything we say here goes round the world."

This reasoning has until now been kept private, although both Welby and his predecessor, Rowan Williams, anguished about it in private.

[amateur51]

But if Welby is right about this, what should he do?

African Christians will be killed if the Church of England accepts gay marriage, the archbishop of Canterbury has suggested. Speaking on an LBC phone in, Justin Welby said he had stood by a mass grave in Nigeria of 330 Christians who had been massacred by neighbours who had justified the atrocity by saying: "If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians."

"I have stood by gravesides in Africa of a group of Christians who had been attacked because of something that had happened in America. We have to listen to that. We have to be aware of the fact," Welby said. If the Church of England celebrated gay marriages, he added, "the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic. Everything we say here goes round the world."

This reasoning has until now been kept private, although both Welby and his predecessor, Rowan Williams, anguished about it in private.

I'd say he needs a plan, don't you?

I have little sympathy for an institution which as been moved everso slowly and reluctantly towards accepting lesbians and gay men as anything remotely akin to equal members of the Church and of society in general. If Canterbury is the lead body in the Church of England then Welby needs to start preparing to confront the constituent Churches in Africa with the awfulness of what he fears may occur if Canterbury finally acknowledges lesbians and gay men as true equals. He needs to be prepared to say that murdering people because you don't approve of who they love is unChristian.Until then lesbian and gay Christians are second-class citizens within the Church and such a situation is not consistent with the Church's being a charity, I would argue.

[ahinton]

Time to abolish the charitable status of the Church of England, I'd suggest, on the basis of these remarks.

Disestablishment looms, perhaps? (it's already been suggesed on several occasions of late, so it's not my original thought) It certainly has the means to turn into a situation in which the notion of an established Anglican Church in Britain becomes ever more widely questioned, I think.

[MrGongGong]

Disestablishment looms, perhaps?

Lets hope so.