Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Its a great step forward 
Posted: 16:02 Mar 31 2004
Government announces civil-contract for gay couples
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3584285.stm
The government today announced a new "civil contract" for gay couples that will provide most of the rights of marriage (although the totemic word will not appear anywhere in the legislation).
While this is obviously a good thing for gay couples, I'm not sure it goes nearly far enough. A complete overhaul of our antiquated marriage laws would be a braver step, as would adopting Peter Tatchell's suggestion of a legal-partnership open to all, including close friends. Creating two different categories of heterosexual marriage and gay partnership, if not making second-class citizens, does draw an unnecessary distinction apparently designed to please certain self-styled traditionalists.
It's obviously better than nothing, but to quote from the judgement of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: "Our history has shown that separate is rarely equal."
The government today announced a new "civil contract" for gay couples that will provide most of the rights of marriage (although the totemic word will not appear anywhere in the legislation).
While this is obviously a good thing for gay couples, I'm not sure it goes nearly far enough. A complete overhaul of our antiquated marriage laws would be a braver step, as would adopting Peter Tatchell's suggestion of a legal-partnership open to all, including close friends. Creating two different categories of heterosexual marriage and gay partnership, if not making second-class citizens, does draw an unnecessary distinction apparently designed to please certain self-styled traditionalists.
It's obviously better than nothing, but to quote from the judgement of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: "Our history has shown that separate is rarely equal."
10 Replies and 1631 Views in Total.
From what I've read, this proposal seems to be 'Gay Marriage' in all but name. But, if they actually allowed it to be called 'Marriage' then a lot of people would kick up. On the other hand, having a distinction between 'marriage' for hetrosexuals and 'partnerships' for homosexuals can still leave the impression that one is superior to the other.
The answer, I believe, is to abolish 'marriage' as a legal definition. Marriage should be a religious ceremony, and left as that. Couples of any persuasion should be free to enter into legal civil partnerships of the same status as that currently held by 'marriage'.
The answer, I believe, is to abolish 'marriage' as a legal definition. Marriage should be a religious ceremony, and left as that. Couples of any persuasion should be free to enter into legal civil partnerships of the same status as that currently held by 'marriage'.
Posted: 07:24 Apr 03 2004
I am also completely for this, as I know same sex couples who are alot stronger than male/female couples.
Though i'm slightly confused how this "ruins the meaning of marriage!"
Though i'm slightly confused how this "ruins the meaning of marriage!"
Posted: 11:28 Apr 06 2004 This would however, create the implication that a religious ceremony is superior to a none religious one. As an Athiest I'd have to disagree with that. As a bi-sexual I am glad that this legislation has gone forward, I can only hope that people will eventually become open minded enough to accept homosexual relationships fully.
by Avenger
The answer, I believe, is to abolish 'marriage' as a legal definition. Marriage should be a religious ceremony, and left as that. Couples of any persuasion should be free to enter into legal civil partnerships of the same status as that currently held by 'marriage'.
Posted: 12:11 Apr 06 2004 I disagree, possibly I wasn't clear enough originally. Marriage would only be a ceremony conducted in a church, in conjunction with that you would have to complete the civil requirements to legally contractualise (is that a word?) the partnership - much as you do now. The fact that a couple were 'married' in a church would be an entirely religious matter and would have no legal significance or weight whatsoever.
by Havoc
(quotes)This would however, create the implication that a religious ceremony is superior to a none religious one. As an Athiest I'd have to disagree with that. As a bi-sexual I am glad that this legislation has gone forward, I can only hope that people will eventually become open minded enough to accept homosexual relationships fully.
The law never had any business getting involved in marriage in the first place, now would be a good time to correct that.
Posted: 19:27 Apr 06 2004
However the idea of saying "We are creating a legal contract of our partnership" doesn't have quite the same feel as "We're getting married". Personally I like the idea of getting married and I don't see why my religious viewpoint or sexual orientation should prevent me from doing so. Anyway I hate the idea of religious marriage, to call it a contract with God is to miss the point that the only person involved is the person you're getting married to. I can see your point, but people are so used to the word "marriage" that it would be hard to remove it now without a great uproar.
Posted: 12:44 Apr 07 2004
I think its disgusting that its taken this country this long to even contemplate gay marriages.
I dont think its it would be up to the govenment or the church to decide who is allowed to get married or not. Its up to personal choice.
People in this generation need to get out of the dark ages.
I dont think its it would be up to the govenment or the church to decide who is allowed to get married or not. Its up to personal choice.
People in this generation need to get out of the dark ages.
Posted: 14:54 Apr 07 2004
It's a step in the right direction but not really a big enough one! Oh well, at least its a positive sign!
Posted: 19:33 Apr 07 2004 
That's not strictly true as the law is also involved. You can't knock the people who want to declare their vows to the god they believe in as surely it's no different to declaring them in front of the law. And if you do really want it just between the two of you then there's nothing stopping you, it just won't be legally binding.
by Havoc
Anyway I hate the idea of religious marriage, to call it a contract with God is to miss the point that the only person involved is the person you're getting married to.
In my opinion, most of that 'feel' is down to the religious aspects of marriage. Church weddings, the traditional wedding vows etc. are all so ingrained in our collective consience that when you think of weddings that's what springs to mind first. "Going down to the registry office" also doesn't have the same feel, but results in the same thing.
by Havoc
However the idea of saying "We are creating a legal contract of our partnership" doesn't have quite the same feel as "We're getting married".
Posted: 20:49 Apr 07 2004 
I can see the appeal of Avenger's argument - it's neat, clinical, logical and avoids unnecessary conflict. But I also see Havoc's practical point. Plus, the word marriage is used in a secular manner currently regarding both human unions and even conceptual unions (a marriage of ideas).
The problem with the legal involvement with marriage is not that it is there at all, but that it has sought to define what is a good and bad marriage, and more, what is allowed to be a marriage at all. Call it in legal terms a civic partnership contract, or some such, if you will. Fact is people will still call it marriage. So what?
Evil twin, you seem to be suggesting that religious ceremonies have more meaning than secular one. While this is true if you are religious to start with, I would argue that a secular ceremony is far more moving if you are not. And why is marriage considered a religious act anyway? Clearly from the religious texts describing marriage the concept precedes the rules on how (insert deity here) says you should do it. Just because we are coming out of a phase of history where religion got its pudgy fingers in everything, from civic life to philosophy, metaphysics to science, and anything else you can think of, doesn't mean that religion has copyright on all aspects of human endeavour.
One last thing. One thing that does bother me is the importance given to gay marriage in the campaign for equality. Or even that equality has come to be the sole aim of gay politics. Why is it that we seem to be saying gay is ok when it follows the mainstream rules - 'look at us, we're gay but we live respectable monogamous lives'. IS that the sum total of what we want? Of what we expect from the rest of society? How about saying 'however you want to live your life is ok as long as no one is hurt (without consent...)'? Why is this more important than getting gay rights the same legal status as anti-discrimination on race or gender grounds? Why this one aspect of the law? What message does this send out? That some forms of homosexual behaviour are acceptable, but others are not? Just a thought.
The problem with the legal involvement with marriage is not that it is there at all, but that it has sought to define what is a good and bad marriage, and more, what is allowed to be a marriage at all. Call it in legal terms a civic partnership contract, or some such, if you will. Fact is people will still call it marriage. So what?
Evil twin, you seem to be suggesting that religious ceremonies have more meaning than secular one. While this is true if you are religious to start with, I would argue that a secular ceremony is far more moving if you are not. And why is marriage considered a religious act anyway? Clearly from the religious texts describing marriage the concept precedes the rules on how (insert deity here) says you should do it. Just because we are coming out of a phase of history where religion got its pudgy fingers in everything, from civic life to philosophy, metaphysics to science, and anything else you can think of, doesn't mean that religion has copyright on all aspects of human endeavour.
One last thing. One thing that does bother me is the importance given to gay marriage in the campaign for equality. Or even that equality has come to be the sole aim of gay politics. Why is it that we seem to be saying gay is ok when it follows the mainstream rules - 'look at us, we're gay but we live respectable monogamous lives'. IS that the sum total of what we want? Of what we expect from the rest of society? How about saying 'however you want to live your life is ok as long as no one is hurt (without consent...)'? Why is this more important than getting gay rights the same legal status as anti-discrimination on race or gender grounds? Why this one aspect of the law? What message does this send out? That some forms of homosexual behaviour are acceptable, but others are not? Just a thought.
Posted: 11:47 Apr 11 2004