Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Gay Marriage


Cobs

Recommended Posts

Not been following this closely but i thought Civil partnerships conferred the same legal rights as a 'marriage' so what's new here? The State aren't going to force Churches to conduct same sex ceremonies are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's the same thing, so why call it something different?

 

Don't think they'll force anyone to conduct religious ceremonies, so it was a pointless argument. Still nice to see where homphobia rears up now and again. (Geddit?!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a couple of weird bits the specific exclusions for the CofE which prevents them explicitly from offering marriage to same sex couples and the fact that the gay community has the option of a marriage or civil partnership while the straight community has marriage only.

 

If what this means is that civil marriages are entirely equal in standing then that has to be good. The fact churches are provided with an opt in I think I'm okay with but I'd prefer the CofE to not be specifically excluded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from the discrimination factor isn't part of the issue allowing religious gay people access to a religious ceremony rather than a civil one?

 

Well you would expect so other than the largest church has been explicitly excluded from opting in which is a bit bizarre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so is this about changing the name of civil partnerships to marriage?

There may be more to it than that, but I'm not a lawyer.

 

It's not, in general, the biggest change in history, so it is indeed quite odd that Cameron nailed his colours to this mast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is what i'm asking - i thought they already were?

 

Other than in name I suspect so. I think part of this is allowing religious marriages to take place. I also think that there's an anachronism when gay non religious people enter into a civil partnership and straight non religious people get married but I think from a tax and pensions perspective they afford the same rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the majority of people even bothered about this? I know it's being reported as a divisive piece of legislation, but I just assumed it was a fringe of religious and the bigoted right shouting loudly and stamping their feet, rather than a huge issue.

Edited by Rushiesbushymoustache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be more to it than that, but I'm not a lawyer.

 

It's not, in general, the biggest change in history, so it is indeed quite odd that Cameron nailed his colours to this mast.

He did have quite a personal and party slip/f*** up during his election campaign though didn't he with the below gay times interview. Maybe he is trying to make amends and secure votes in the next election, get the 'gays' on side, get the Euro Refferendums on side... etc...etc...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grRmYk6f6M4

He really starts to flounder at 1.40 in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the majority of people even bothered about this? I know it's being reported as a divisive piece of legislation, but I just assumed it was a fringe of religious and the bigoted right shouting loudly and stamping their feet, rather than a huge issue.

 

With the coverage, you'd think it was huge, but I think it's more like a lot of the conservative and C of E venn crossover getting uppity that the last or near last discrimination of rights for gays is soon to be no more.

 

I've heard many arguments against from reinterpreting the purpose of marriage, to it being legally pointless, to why is it different to polygamy, no mandate, too rushed, not the right time, churches will be forced to conduct the ceremonies, but under it all comes across this sense of this is our thing, haven't we given them enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it becomes law with Camerons's caveat of no religious institution will be forced to carry out the ceremony surely some one will take it to the European Court Of Human Rights and win their case if their local church/mosque/synagogue refuses to carry out the ceremony?

 

Or is that one of his drivers? To use to get us out of the European Human Rights Act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gays who I know seem quite happy with their civil partnership thingies

 

I went to a lesbian wedding, and they wanted to be called wife and wife. But, its not allowed.

 

I think its daft myself they can't be called that.

 

A civil partnership sounds like a business rather than a wedding, to me anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this is all a big smokescreen to divert attention from some other issue that the Government wants off the front page.

 

Politicians kick this off , then the C of E weighs in and all of a sudden it's a big media deal.

 

If the C of E (or any other religious body) is given an opt out then surely they're just going to exercise it and everyone carries on as before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember, they fudged it for them, so it wasn't as formal as the document says they should be.

 

the form, word for word is something like "We know see this civil union"

 

 

 

sounds like a right f*ck up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...