# UK's first gay marriages today. What negative consequences can we expect to see? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315 "2005-12-19T17:17:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/21 "2005-12-19T19:57:30Z")
Apparently, we’re in for [the vengeance of eternal fire](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1943329,00.html) > [@](#): > > Fundamentalist Christians from the Rev. Ian Paisley’s Free Presbyterian Church held banners saying: “Be sure your sin will find you out”, and “Do not be deceived, homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God”. But in a series of exchanges, supporters of gay rights responded to their critics with humour. > > “You need to turn yourself away from your sinful lifestyle. You’re an abomination before God,” the Rev. James Dawson, a Scottish vicar, told one lesbian couple as they walked past. > > “You would be so lucky to have this lady, love,” said the woman, referring to her partner. “I’ll see you at the gates of heaven.” > > **Others among the crowd carried posters mocking reactionary views, with the slogans: “Earth is flat” and “Bring back slavery”.** 😃 ---
**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/22 "2005-12-19T20:03:10Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I’ve a question about. I’ve heard it refered toas a “civil union” or somesuch, instead of marriage. So, my question is : is it equivalent to a marriage (like in Spain, for instance) or is it some sort of union that doesn’t grant all the rights married people normally enjoy (like in France, for instance)? As far as I can tell, in legal terms, it’s marriage in all but name: the same rights and responsibilities apply, and it can only be dissolved in a court procedure very like a divorce. [This link](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4497348.stm) has some helpful questions and answers. The government has been very careful not to call it “marriage” in an effort to actually get the legislation through without an unnecessary shitstorm, but the differences seem largely procedural. Despite what Tevildo says, I can’t imagine the gay community campaigning for it to officially be known as a marriage: they’ll have all the legal benefits, they can have an official ceremony, there are even churches which will bless the union. And whatever it says on the certificate, everyone will call it a marriage anyway. And besides that, it’s freezing here at the minute. Leave the demonstations to the sour-faced clerics with their “Sodomy is sin” banners. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/23 "2005-12-19T20:03:52Z")
Sadly, many of those opposed to SSM are immune to logic. It really \*\*is \*\*signifcant that we’ve had SSM in MA for almost 2 years now. It’s just no big deal, and yet there’s still this fear that it “threatens traditional marriage”. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/24 "2005-12-19T20:10:00Z")
> [@yojimbo](#): > > Yep, the gobshites can be seen in the following link [BBC NEWS | UK | Northern Ireland | 'Gay weddings' first for Belfast](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4540226.stm) And what a lovely bunch they are. They are aware, of course, that lesbians don’t commit sodomy? At least, not without help. I would agree with the Reverend McIlveen. I am totally against “marriage in all but name only.” Let 'em call it marriage, as well. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/25 "2005-12-19T20:15:46Z")
If there’s no legal distinction (and there isn’t), then if it’s _called_ gay marriage (note that I deliberately used the term several times in my OP), it will _be_ gay marriage, in a similar manner to trademarks becoming common terms. That is how languages evolve: like in biological evolution, superficial and arbitrary taxonomies do not stand the test of time. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/26 "2005-12-19T20:17:25Z")
> [@WotNot](#): > > As far as I can tell, in legal terms, it’s marriage in all but name: the same rights and responsibilities apply, and it can only be dissolved in a court procedure very like a divorce. [This link](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4497348.stm) has some helpful questions and answers. > > The government has been very careful not to call it “marriage” in an effort to actually get the legislation through without an unnecessary shitstorm, but the differences seem largely procedural. Despite what Tevildo says, I can’t imagine the gay community campaigning for it to officially be known as a marriage: they’ll have all the legal benefits, they can have an official ceremony, there are even churches which will bless the union. And whatever it says on the certificate, everyone will call it a marriage anyway. The main issue, not mentioned in the BBC article quoted, is citizenship and immigration. It’s not possible for a non-UK citizen to get a visa enabling them to come over for a civil partnership ceremony. Entering into a civil partnership doesn’t convey the same citizenship rights as a marriage does; gay partners still need to demonstrate that they’re already living together before the non-UK member can apply for naturalization. The _word_ itself isn’t admittedly that important. What does matter is that both gay and straight couples should be able to go through the _same_ ceremony which conveys the _same_ rights on both. This isn’t the case at the moment. By all means re-name “marriage” as “civil partnership” for both straight and gay couples, but let all of us be entitled to _identical_ recognition of our relationships. The phrase “seperate but equal” is more applicable to the US, but I think it’s still as invalid a concept in the UK. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/27 "2005-12-19T20:20:55Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > If there’s no legal distinction (and there isn’t), then if it’s _called_ gay marriage (note that I deliberately used the term several times in my OP), it will _be_ gay marriage, in a similar manner to trademarks becoming common terms. That is how languages evolve: like in biological evolution, superficial and arbitrary taxonomies do not stand the test of time. The article infers that there are differences other than the name “marriage,” although it does not go into those differences. While it will probably be termed marriage eventually, that title should mean gay couples are entitled to the same benefits as hetero couples. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/28 "2005-12-19T20:26:51Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Obvious proof, _proof_ that God hates straights ! Well, duh. I mean, His first order to newly fallen humanity: Be fruitful! get it? be fruitful? never mind. Go about your business. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/29 "2005-12-19T22:30:40Z")
> [@WotNot](#): > > As far as I can tell, in legal terms, it’s marriage in all but name: the same rights and responsibilities apply, and it can only be dissolved in a court procedure very like a divorce. [This link](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4497348.stm) has some helpful questions and answers. > > The government has been very careful not to call it “marriage” in an effort to actually get the legislation through without an unnecessary shitstorm, but the differences seem largely procedural. OK. It’s a marriage called otherwise. It explains why I’ve heard/read it being refered indiferently as “marriage” or “civil partnership”. It was a little confusing. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/30 "2005-12-19T22:49:35Z")
> [@WotNot](#): > > The government has been very careful not to call it “marriage” in an effort to actually get the legislation through without an unnecessary shitstorm, but the differences seem largely procedural. Despite what Tevildo says, I can’t imagine the gay community campaigning for it to officially be known as a marriage: they’ll have all the legal benefits, they can have an official ceremony, there are even churches which will bless the union. And whatever it says on the certificate, everyone will call it a marriage anyway. > . You haven’t been reading many threads here on this. Several Members were quite vocal in that anything other than a FULL marriage by name and everything was not acceptable. No, I am not going to Search for hours to find that, sorry And, that’ll be one type of Court challenge. Then there’ll be those who challenge the other way (well, if it isn’t really marriage, then…", then there will be those married there but moving to another jurisiction, then… Ofr course, in todays litigious society there are always Court challenges, so really, this isn’t a significant problem. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/31 "2005-12-19T23:05:32Z")
Ah, good old Ian, the UK’s answer to Fred Phelps… ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/32 "2005-12-19T23:26:40Z")
Great. Now Rick Santorum’s marriage is going to be even weaker. Won’t anyone think of all the harm you’re doing to Rick Santorum’s marriage? I predict that the term “confirmed bachelor” won’t be used as a euphamism for gay nearly as much. Incidentally, any Brits know if the UK equalised their age-of-consent laws for straights and gays? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/33 "2005-12-19T23:47:48Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > Incidentally, any Brits know if the UK equalised their age-of-consent laws for straights and gays? Yes, a few years back as I recall - 16 across the board, except in Northern Ireland, where it’s 17 (thanks to Paisley’s mates, no doubt). [Cite](http://www.ageofconsent.com/unitedkingdom.htm) - warning, this is ‘Age of [Consent.com](http://Consent.com)’ which might be deemed a dodgy site by some. ---
**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/34 "2005-12-20T08:42:36Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > The main issue, not mentioned in the BBC article quoted, is citizenship and immigration. It’s not possible for a non-UK citizen to get a visa enabling them to come over for a civil partnership ceremony. Entering into a civil partnership doesn’t convey the same citizenship rights as a marriage does; gay partners still need to demonstrate that they’re already living together before the non-UK member can apply for naturalization. > > The _word_ itself isn’t admittedly that important. What does matter is that both gay and straight couples should be able to go through the _same_ ceremony which conveys the _same_ rights on both. This isn’t the case at the moment. By all means re-name “marriage” as “civil partnership” for both straight and gay couples, but let all of us be entitled to _identical_ recognition of our relationships. The phrase “seperate but equal” is more applicable to the US, but I think it’s still as invalid a concept in the UK. I wasn’t aware of the immigration issue. Am I being appallingly cynical in thinking that equality _will_ be achieved, but by removing these rights from straight couples, rather than extending them to gay ones? As for making the same ceremony available to all, I can certainly see the civil partnership being made universally available in the near future. What I can’t see is “marriage,” as it’s currently understood, with all its religious and social baggage, being either removed from straights or extended to gay couples. There’s only so much that can reasonably be achieved by legislation. However, as **DrDeth** correctly pointed out, I haven’t been following these debates here – this all just my personal opinion based on what I’ve seen and heard elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/35 "2005-12-20T09:05:25Z")
Well, I’ve been married to my wife now for nearly fifteen years and I foolishly thought that our commitment and love for each other was deep and constant; I mistakenly believed that the vows we made to each other were solemn and binding; I even thought that the _family_ we had built was some kind of meaningful unit. But it all just vanished! poof! _eroded_ in an instant by the fact that people who are complete strangers to me are now able to enter into legal partnership… ummm… yeah. Or in other words: what was the problem again? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/36 "2005-12-20T09:24:36Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Well, I’ve been married to my wife now for nearly fifteen years and I foolishly thought that our commitment and love for each other was deep and constant; I mistakenly believed that the vows we made to each other were solemn and binding; I even thought that the _family_ we had built was some kind of meaningful unit. > But it all just vanished! **poof!** _eroded_ in an instant by the fact that people who are complete strangers to me are now able to enter into legal partnership… ummm… yeah. > > Or in other words: what was the problem again? Poor choice of words, **Mangetout**. 😛 Btw, may I now take it that there _is_ such a thing as “the gay community” after all? I keep getting confused. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/37 "2005-12-20T13:15:44Z")
> [@WotNot](#): > > I wasn’t aware of the immigration issue. Am I being appallingly cynical in thinking that equality _will_ be achieved, but by removing these rights from straight couples, rather than extending them to gay ones? No, I think that would be quite a reasonable approach. At the moment, a straight couple just have to be able to say “Yes” to the question “Do you _really_ love each other? Or are you just getting married so that one of you can become a UK citizen?”. A gay couple have to prove they’ve been living together, sharing household bills, etc, for a substantial time (I think it’s either six or eighteen months). I think it would be entirely fair to apply the same standard to straight couples; the essential point is that it should be the _same_ standard, not how strict or lax the standard is. > [@](#): > > As for making the same ceremony available to all, I can certainly see the civil partnership being made universally available in the near future. What I can’t see is “marriage,” as it’s currently understood, with all its religious and social baggage, being either removed from straights or extended to gay couples. There’s only so much that can reasonably be achieved by legislation. Well, at the moment, there are three options in England (I’m not 100% certain about the position in the rest of the UK, but I assume it’s similar); a marriage ceremony in an Anglican church (straight couples who are members of the Church of England only), a “civil marriage” in a registry office (straight couples only, of any religious persuasion), and a “civil partnership” (gay couples only). I don’t see any reason (other than appeasement of homophobia, of course) why the existing civil marriage can’t be available to gay couples as well. By all means, abolish “civil marriage” and make everyone who is unwilling or unable to get married in an Anglican church enter into a “civil partnership” instead; but I doubt very much whether this move would have popular support. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/38 "2005-12-20T13:28:52Z")
Actually, one severely negative effect I foresee is the absolute tackiness of Elton & David’s wedding. I predict it will rival that of [Jordan and Peter](http://socialitelife.com/mt/archives/a_big_pink_example_of_bad_taste.php) for sheer eye-damaging kitsch. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/39 "2005-12-20T13:34:37Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Btw, may I now take it that there _is_ such a thing as “the gay community” after all? I keep getting confused. Yes, in the same way as there are such things as “the black community” and “the Jewish community” - I hope you appreciate that one can be gay, or black, or Jewish, without considering oneself to be part of the relevant community, of course. The phrase to which exception has been taken is “gay agenda”. Hope this helps. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315/40 "2005-12-20T14:07:52Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > Yes, in the same way as there are such things as “the black community” and “the Jewish community” - I hope you appreciate that one can be gay, or black, or Jewish, without considering oneself to be part of the relevant community, of course. > > The phrase to which exception has been taken is “gay agenda”. Hope this helps. Very much, thanks, but if I had a quid for every time I’d seen someone throw a giant conniption over the phrase “the gay community”, I’d be expectorating tobacco juice until the spitoon overflowed. /hijack. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uks-first-gay-marriages-today-what-negative-consequences-can-we-expect-to-see/336315.md?page=3)