The legal differences between a Gay civil union and a Gay marriage

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

When are they going to annouce civil partnerships can now be allowed for straight people?

 

Yeah, and when are they going to let men have the right to have abortions?!

[Turkish]

Yeah, and when are they going to let men have the right to have abortions?!

 

 

ask this couple if it's a laughing matter. This is a serious point. Straight people should be allowed civil partnerships like gays can have marriages. It's about choices. Why should straight people be discriminated against?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

ask this couple if it's a laughing matter. This is a serious point. Straight people should be allowed civil partnerships like gays can have marriages. It's about choices. Why should straight people be discriminated against?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

 

You're right for too long straight people have been discriminated against.

 

Seriously though, the only reason that the example you link exists is because up until now people were determined not to give gays equal rights. I can't see why anyone would choose Civil partnership over marriage in the first place and now that gays can get a marriage maybe they'll just get rid of civil partnerships altogether

Edited 6 February, 2013 by anothersaintinsouthsea

[Saintandy666]

Some of you lot are silly! There's more to life than boring legal technicalities. We're humans, we have culture and we can think in ways other animals can't. Because of that subtleties such as semantics matter a great deal.

[Barry Sanchez]

It is a step.

 

As a thought, if their love is so strong, why seek approval from those who would always look down upon them? Surely the love they have for each other would be enough to justify itself on their own terms? Why use the terminology of those who would oppress them to define the boundaries of their relationships?

 

So you dont recognise marraige or the people that marry?

 

To answer your question, gays may choose to never marry thats their choice but its one they do not have at the moment.

[Turkish]

You're right for too long straight people have been discriminated against.

 

Seriously though, the only reason that the example you link exists is because up until now people were determined not to give gays equal rights. I can't see why anyone would choose Civil partnership over marriage in the first place and now that gays can get a marriage maybe they'll just get rid of civil partnerships altogether

 

This couple had a reason and I'm sure they aren't the only ones. Only allowing gay people civil partnerships is a disgrace and hetrophobic. I'd never have got married if I could have had a civil partnership instead and I demand equality.

[trousers]

This couple had a reason and I'm sure they aren't the only ones. Only allowing gay people civil partnerships is a disgrace and hetrophobic. I'd never have got married if I could have had a civil partnership instead and I demand equality.

 

You'll probably stand more chance of changing the law by lobbying parliament than raising it here. (Not that I wish to undermine the almighty influence of the SWF)

Edited 6 February, 2013 by trousers

[scotty]

This couple had a reason and I'm sure they aren't the only ones. Only allowing gay people civil partnerships is a disgrace and hetrophobic. I'd never have got married if I could have had a civil partnership instead and I demand equality.

 

 

I hope your Mrs doesnt see that, mate.

[Frank's cousin]

Government has been very clever - they pass this and allow a veto - pleasing everybody.... knowing full well that any legal challenges would be taken to the ECHR who will get the blame if any decision is made to enforce it in all churches - Thus their core Daily Mail Blue rince vote will have another stick with which to beat the ECHR and sing loudly from their metaphoical hymnsheet their favourite tune:

 

''Its political Correctness gone mad

how very very very sad

God made us all in his own form

And dic ks in arses is not the norm

 

Those EU queers, they have no right

they make me sick to the sight

Spreading filth on our hills, grass and sand

polluting England's green and pleasent land

 

First is Queers in church, but ther'll be more

Human righs? Pah - filth through the back door

Its political Correctness gone mad

how very very very sad

 

[egg]

The differences are minor.

 

See http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships

 

Gay and mixed sex marriage remains different in that gay couples will not marry to the exclusion of all others. Imo that's one of the cornerstones of marriage.

 

To those calling for mixed sex civil partnership. How would you propose that to a prospective life time partner rather than marriage?

 

I can't imagine the line "we could marry but that obligates monogamy and the rest of our lives is a long time so how about civil partnership instead?" would go down too well.

Edited 6 February, 2013 by egg
muppet typing

[Frank's cousin]

The differences are minor.

 

See http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships

 

Gay and same sex marriage remains different in that gay couples will not marry to the exclusion of all others. Imo that's one of the cornerstones of marriage.

 

To those calling for same sex civil partnership. How would you propose that to a prospective life time partner rather than marriage?

 

I can't imagine the line "we could marry but that obligates monogamy and the rest of our lives is a long time so how about civil partnership instead?" would go down too well.

 

A nobel yet slightly naive statement I would imagine - married folks have ben having affairs since marriage was first intriduced as a concept - Also in the OT, you have to marry the older sister first and can then marry the younger one... but they changed thoses laws.... which is sort of the point - all religious doctrine has been adapted, laws/rules chnaged over time usually for political needs or for greater control, but at times alos in repsosnse to what is acceptable from a social societal perspective... forgetting all teh other issues for a second, i would just ask the churches that if they can chnage rules x,y and z to suit their 'flock' why cant they change the one they made up (not God) about gay marriage - in not doing so they quite rightly leave themselves open to allegations of prejudice.

[egg]

A nobel yet slightly naive statement I would imagine - married folks have ben having affairs since marriage was first intriduced as a concept - Also in the OT' date=' you have to marry the older sister first and can then marry the younger one... but they changed thoses laws.... which is sort of the point - all religious doctrine has been adapted, laws/rules chnaged over time usually for political needs or for greater control, but at times alos in repsosnse to what is acceptable from a social societal perspective... forgetting all teh other issues for a second, i would just ask the churches that if they can chnage rules x,y and z to suit their 'flock' why cant they change the one they made up (not God) about gay marriage - in not doing so they quite rightly leave themselves open to allegations of prejudice.[/quote']

 

Of course affairs will happen. The point I make is why a straight couple wouldn't want the union has an in built (theoretical) monogamy clause. It seems unfair that gay couples don't have that equality.

 

Now we have what we have I can't see a place for civil partnership at all.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Dear (incert name here),

 

Will you civil partner me?

 

Job done.

 

Just have to rename the TV shows, 'don't tell the civil partner' '4 civil partners' etc

[Joensuu]

My girlfriend and I have decided not to marry. (Without meaning to offend anyone) we view marriage as a price of paper, which many couples hang on to in lieu of real love and commitment. As atheists we don't like the religious overtones of a marriage either. If we legally had the right to a civil union we might be far more likely to press ahead. I'm with Turkish on this one, I currently feel discrimated against. The sooner anyone, whatever their sexuality, have equal rights to an equal choice of partnership, the better.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express

[trousers]

Atheism is a belief system too. I urge all open minded people to join us agnostics.

[Guided Missile]

At a time when the economy is in the sh !tter, all the politicians and press have to chatter about is a non-issue to the vast majority of the population, who are too embarrassed to offend a sector of our society, in which the indulgence in unusual sexual practices are placed above the basic need for humans to procreate.

 

This is when I I turn to "The Life of Brian", a film that still manages to capture the laughable state of politics and religion in most parts of the world, a state ably supported by a dim and self-absorbed congregation:

 

[Joensuu]

Trousers, to clarify I'm more accurately an agnostic, de facto atheist. As such I am entirely atheist, until any evidence is discovered to suggest I might be wrong.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express

[trousers]

In the words of William L Rowe...

 

"An agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational."

Edited 6 February, 2013 by trousers

[Polaroid Saint]

My girlfriend and I have decided not to marry. (Without meaning to offend anyone) we view marriage as a price of paper, which many couples hang on to in lieu of real love and commitment. As atheists we don't like the religious overtones of a marriage either. If we legally had the right to a civil union we might be far more likely to press ahead. I'm with Turkish on this one, I currently feel discrimated against. The sooner anyone, whatever their sexuality, have equal rights to an equal choice of partnership, the better.

 

^This.

Although I don't mind nicking a bit of a religion for a laugh, like Christmas and that; socially I do not want the 'stigma' of being married.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

My girlfriend and I have decided not to marry. (Without meaning to offend anyone) we view marriage as a price of paper, which many couples hang on to in lieu of real love and commitment. As atheists we don't like the religious overtones of a marriage either. If we legally had the right to a civil union we might be far more likely to press ahead. I'm with Turkish on this one, I currently feel discrimated against. The sooner anyone, whatever their sexuality, have equal rights to an equal choice of partnership, the better.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express

 

Civil marriages have no religious overtones at all, in fact any religious references are explicitly banned.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

This couple had a reason and I'm sure they aren't the only ones. Only allowing gay people civil partnerships is a disgrace and hetrophobic. I'd never have got married if I could have had a civil partnership instead and I demand equality.

 

And yet it is only "hetrophobic" in the first place because the Government at the time didn't want to give Gays equal rights.

[Saint_clark]

Civil marriages have no religious overtones at all, in fact any religious references are explicitly banned.

 

Yeah, you can have ceremonies with no relation to religion whatsoever. If I was ever to enslave myself I think this is the option I'd take.

[Turkish]

I hope your Mrs doesnt see that, mate.

 

She'd have loved it. I would automatically have been better at helping her chose shoes and handbags.

[Turkish]

And yet it is only "hetrophobic" in the first place because the Government at the time didn't want to give Gays equal rights.

 

They do have equal rights. The government is hetrophobic as straight people want the choice between a marriage and a civil partnership. If one person feel discriminated against in our open and free society then that is one too many. I demand chance.

[Joensuu]

In the words of William L Rowe...

 

 

"An agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational."

 

 

Rowe is correct. However, I don't see three positions (Atheist;Agnostic;Theist), as the two 'extremes' are 100% certain of their position, leaving a massive spectrum of 'doubt' covered by the term agnostic. In other words, agnostic is equally applicable to someone who is 99% convinced of a deity, as it is for someone who is 99% certain that there isn't one. For me that spectrum is simply to vast - Dawkins' Spectrum of theistic probability is a more sensible scale to use, as it breaks agnosticism into subsections. On Dawkins' scale, I would be in the 6th group, but as close to the seventh as would be possible.

 

 

I think a good example is gravity. Gravity exists, I think we can all agree on that (?), but it isn't 100% proven, and can never be proven, but it could be disproved (i.e. to quote Einstein "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."). To say 100% that gravity exists is technically incorrect, it could someday become disproved. I feel the same way about Atheism - based on the available evidence I'm complete convinced, but am willing to accept that further discoveries might prove me wrong. For example, if a deity decided to actually reveal themselves, then bang goes atheism!

 

 

Civil marriages have no religious overtones at all, in fact any religious references are explicitly banned.

 

 

Absolutely, that's one of the main reasons why I'd rather have a civil union. They serve the purpose of forming a legal union, or announcing commitment to your friends and family, without having the overheads of 'faith', or a piece of paper forming the core bond within a partnership.

 

 

They do have equal rights. The government is hetrophobic as straight people want the choice between a marriage and a civil partnership. If one person feel discriminated against in our open and free society then that is one too many. I demand chance.[/Quote]

 

 

It's currently disciminatory to both parties, so when you day 'that do have equal rights' you are entirely wrong. However, I open you new-found quest for equality and a free society, quite out of character.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

They do have equal rights. The government is hetrophobic as straight people want the choice between a marriage and a civil partnership. If one person feel discriminated against in our open and free society then that is one too many. I demand chance.

 

They have equal rights NOW. Civil Partnerships were only created to give Gays more rights without making them equal to Heteros. So the dreadful inequality you imagine is only the result of initial discrimination against gays.

 

Did you mean "choice" in that last sentence? Or did you mean you demand the chance to be gay and get married in which case I say go for it.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Absolutely, that's one of the main reasons why I'd rather have a civil union. They serve the purpose of forming a legal union, or announcing commitment to your friends and family, without having the overheads of 'faith', or a piece of paper forming the core bond within a partnership.

 

Have we got crossed wires? I thought you said you wanted a Civil Partnership because you didn't want anything religious. I was referring to a marriage conducted by a civil registrar not a civil partnership.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Nope' date=' but its a good distraction[/quote']

 

That is an excuse for the naysayers to try and put off actually doing.

 

It will probably never be a 'priority', that's no reason to with hold peoples right to equality.

 

Plus, it was debated for one day, and then voted on the same evening. Hardly a huge distraction.

[Viking Warrior]

Do non hetrosexual marriages have pre nuptial agreements ? just curious

[Turkish]

They have equal rights NOW. Civil Partnerships were only created to give Gays more rights without making them equal to Heteros. So the dreadful inequality you imagine is only the result of initial discrimination against gays.

 

Did you mean "choice" in that last sentence? Or did you mean you demand the chance to be gay and get married in which case I say go for it.

 

How are civil partnerships not equal to marriage? I did mean choice, i demand the chance to be able to have a civil partnership or a marriage.

[Turkish]

Rowe is correct. However, I don't see three positions (Atheist;Agnostic;Theist), as the two 'extremes' are 100% certain of their position, leaving a massive spectrum of 'doubt' covered by the term agnostic. In other words, agnostic is equally applicable to someone who is 99% convinced of a deity, as it is for someone who is 99% certain that there isn't one. For me that spectrum is simply to vast - Dawkins' Spectrum of theistic probability is a more sensible scale to use, as it breaks agnosticism into subsections. On Dawkins' scale, I would be in the 6th group, but as close to the seventh as would be possible.

 

 

I think a good example is gravity. Gravity exists, I think we can all agree on that (?), but it isn't 100% proven, and can never be proven, but it could be disproved (i.e. to quote Einstein "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."). To say 100% that gravity exists is technically incorrect, it could someday become disproved. I feel the same way about Atheism - based on the available evidence I'm complete convinced, but am willing to accept that further discoveries might prove me wrong. For example, if a deity decided to actually reveal themselves, then bang goes atheism!

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely, that's one of the main reasons why I'd rather have a civil union. They serve the purpose of forming a legal union, or announcing commitment to your friends and family, without having the overheads of 'faith', or a piece of paper forming the core bond within a partnership.

 

 

 

 

 

It's currently disciminatory to both parties, so when you day 'that do have equal rights' you are entirely wrong. However, I open you new-found quest for equality and a free society, quite out of character.

 

I think you'll find i've always championed equal rights and being proud of what you are.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

How are civil partnerships not equal to marriage? I did mean choice, i demand the chance to be able to have a civil partnership or a marriage.

 

I agree, you should write to your local MP and begin a campaign for the literally tens of people who care.

[Thedelldays]

I agree, you should write to your local MP and begin a campaign for the literally tens of people who care.

its a shame you dont care about equality on every level for everyone...

[Turkish]

I agree, you should write to your local MP and begin a campaign for the literally tens of people who care.

 

Answer the question. How are civil partnerships not equal to marriage? In whose eyes?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

in the eyes of thousands of Gay people who couldn't say they were "married". Semantics I know but rather symbolic.

 

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/family/marriage_and_civil_partnerships/500385.html

 

Essentially they grant the same legal rights and protections.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

its a shame you dont care about equality on every level for everyone...

 

I said i agreed with him. Do you approach all issues with the same level of passion and interest? A "mongboard" WUM and a few weirdos wanting heterosexual civil partnerships is hardly equivalent to hundreds of thousands of people being granted the right to marry.

[Minty]

Here's a good article about the 'difference': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9851634/Why-I-am-going-to-marry-Clare-Balding.html

[Turkish]

in the eyes of thousands of Gay people who couldn't say they were "married". Semantics I know but rather symbolic.

 

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/family/marriage_and_civil_partnerships/500385.html

 

Essentially they grant the same legal rights and protections.

 

"that the same legal rights were granted to them as married couples."

 

So it's exactly the same. No reason at all to think they are discriminated against.

[Turkish]

Here's a good article about the 'difference': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9851634/Why-I-am-going-to-marry-Clare-Balding.html

 

"Most of the people we know refer to us as ‘married’, they talk about having attended our ‘wedding’. We don’t though. We never have"

 

So most people think of them as married, they have the same legal rights as married people, people attended their wedding. I cant see the difference.

[Minty]

I must admit I don't quite get why people who want to commit to each other don't like the 'stigma' of marriage, as one person put it.

 

I'm very happily married, with no religious belief or involvement in my life whatsoever, and that 'piece of paper' that many seem against, is simply that. A piece of paper. The bond in my marriage is entirely between my wife and I, we don't need that piece of paper, but it just happens to be there to record the event.

[Minty]

"Most of the people we know refer to us as ‘married’, they talk about having attended our ‘wedding’. We don’t though. We never have"

 

So most people think of them as married, they have the same legal rights as married people, people attended their wedding. I cant see the difference.

 

Most people yes, but not them. It's up to them how they feel about it. Discrimination is about how you are made to feel, not necessarily the legal rights... I agree with you to some degree, I think marriage should be permitted for everyone and Civil Partnerships removed, so everyone has the same choice, and no one should feel any discrimination on any side.

[Turkish]

Most people yes, but not them. It's up to them how they feel about it. Discrimination is about how you are made to feel, not necessarily the legal rights... I agree with you to some degree, I think marriage should be permitted for everyone and Civil Partnerships removed, so everyone has the same choice, and no one should feel any discrimination on any side.

 

It's also possible to feel discriminated against when you aren't being, no?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I think you've nailed it Turkish, Cameron could have saved a whole lot of hassle if he'd have just told the gays to shut up and move on. Ever thought of going into politics?

[Minty]

It's also possible to feel discriminated against when you aren't being, no?

Anyone can feel discriminated against - the deal breaker is whether that particular discrimination you claim is against the law or not. I've dealt with it plenty in employment law scenarios, and it can be a ***** to deal with.

 

And of course, if you feel that discrimination *should* be against the law, then you try and do something about it. That's the beauty of democracy...

[Turkish]

Anyone can feel discriminated against - the deal breaker is whether that particular discrimination you claim is against the law or not. I've dealt with it plenty in employment law scenarios, and it can be a ***** to deal with.

 

And of course, if you feel that discrimination *should* be against the law, then you try and do something about it. That's the beauty of democracy...

 

Being gay isn't against the law, in fact so all encompassing is our society we invented a new type of partnership specifically for gay people to celebrate their relationships, we gave them equal rights as marriage for this type if relationship, but that wasn't good enough. I applaud the arrangement of civil relationships and I would suggest that in a day when marriage is not considered the binding arrangement it was with almost half ending in divorce civil relationships were a modern and more appealing alternative. Afterall, don't people often say that religion has no place in a modern society and the marriage arrangement was fundementally a religious arrangement.

[Turkish]

I think you've nailed it Turkish, Cameron could have saved a whole lot of hassle if he'd have just told the gays to shut up and move on. Ever thought of going into politics?

 

You know what, there is probably some truth in that. If people had abit more backbone and weren't so Lilly liveried being offended every 30 seconds then this country would be a lot better place. That the trouble, no ones got any minerals anymore and have to pander to every whim.

[scotty]

Do non hetrosexual marriages have pre nuptial agreements ? just curious

 

No idea Viking, but check with some of the regulars in the London Hotel. Never know how you might feel once you're in there.

[itchen]

And where's the promised tax break for married couples ? That WAS in the manifesto, unlike this new bit of legislation.

 

Putting aside the other flaws in the plan, at least now when it is introduced it won't discriminate against married gay couples. Will still discriminate against couples who choose not to marry. And the people who don't earn enough to benefit from such arrangements and end up paying a higher proportion of their lower income in tax.

[aintforever]

I'm glad our MPs have actually made the right decision for a change. I just can't see what people have against gays getting married.

[Barry Sanchez]

On this thread we have liberals against marraige, I wonder are these the same liberals who used to argue it was a disgrace our future could not be catholic? Just curious.