Apparently, we’re in for the vengeance of eternal fire
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 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.
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”.
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.
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 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.
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.
Well, duh. I mean, His first order to newly fallen humanity: Be fruitful!
get it? be fruitful?
never mind. Go about your business.
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.
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.
Ah, good old Ian, the UK’s answer to Fred Phelps…
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?
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 - warning, this is ‘Age of Consent.com’ which might be deemed a dodgy site by some.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 for sheer eye-damaging kitsch.
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.