UK's first gay marriages today. What negative consequences can we expect to see?

[Homebrew]

@jjimm

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.

*Pink is my signature color. *

That sanctuary looks like it’s been hosed down with Pepto-Bismol.

[flight]

@Maureen

And what a lovely bunch they are. They are aware, of course, that lesbians don’t commit sodomy? At least, not without help.

Isn’t oral sex, even between two women, considered sodomy?

[Scott_Plaid]

Sodomy is not soley anal sex.

@wiki

A sodomy law is a law which makes certain sexual acts into sex crimes. The term sodomy has in the past been used to refer to any deviant sexual act, often deemed so because such does not lead to procreation. That inclusive interpretation includes oral sex, and bestiality, but the predominant understanding of sodomy relates it to anal sex

<Snip>
Following Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England [1], the crime of sodomy has often been defined in the past only as the abominable and detestable crime against nature, or some variation of the phrase. This language led to widely varying rulings about what specific acts were encompassed by its prohibition.

[alphaboi867]

@John Mace

Well, we’ve had real SSM in one state in the US for almost 2 years now. And except for the worst hurricane season in memory, God’s been pretty cool with it.

Yeah, she really showed those red states with SSM bans!
Anyhow, British civil partnerships are a huge step forward for same-sex couples gays and lesbians do not have equality with straights. Gays still can’t have (consenting) clergy officiate at their union, they can’t get their union dissloved based on adultery (I find that particulary insulting), not can they be annuled for non-consumation.

[Leaper]

To answer, the OP’s question, this thread I started links to an article that describes what one gay marriage opponent fears are negative consequences caused by gay marriage. (Whether they are actually caused by it or not is, of course, another GD, but this is the kind of thing that his side of the aisle apparently fears will happen.)

(On preview, the URL has trouble loading, but the discussion has some quotes, and Googling “Stanley Kurtz marriage Sweden” should come up with some links to the original article, if not the article itself.)

[clairobscur]

@alphaboi867

Anyhow, British civil partnerships are a huge step forward for same-sex couples gays and lesbians do not have equality with straights. Gays still can’t have (consenting) clergy officiate at their union, they can’t get their union dissloved based on adultery (I find that particulary insulting), not can they be annuled for non-consumation.

The more I read, the more confusing it gets. How exactly did they come up with these arbitrary differences? Was there already some sort of union, or recognition of partnership not sanctionned by marriage, or rights open to non-married people living together previously defined by jurisprudence, and they extended it to gay? Or did they make up this civil partnership by taking one by one every law related to marriage and tossing a coin each time, with “heads : doesn’t apply to gay marriage, tails : applies to gay marriage” ?

[Dead_Badger]

@clairobscur

The more I read, the more confusing it gets. How exactly did they come up with these arbitrary differences? Was there already some sort of union, or recognition of partnership not sanctionned by marriage, or rights open to non-married people living together previously defined by jurisprudence, and they extended it to gay?

It confuses me too, and as far as I’m aware there was no existing institution being adapted for the new legislation. The truth of the matter is that this has all passed through with remarkably little public debate, being proposed and passed without many noticeable legislative hitches. The Conservatives in the Lords kicked up a token fuss before being told to shut up by members of the parliamentary party who realise that being agin’ the gays isn’t a votewinner. In fact, what hitches there were were ostensibly caused by objections that the gay marriages gave gay couples certain rights that even heterosexual couples didn’t enjoy (although this was, IMO, largely a fig leaf for the aforementioned Tories’ prejudices). Either way, this seems to have been one of those reforms in which the basic principle has taken centre stage, and pretty much all details have been ignored. Very odd. I think ironically it’s because the opposition has been so completely muted that some of the weird differences you mention haven’t really been noticed and remedied.

It’s always surprised me, having participated in some of the debates on this board, that considering the resentment generated by “civil union” proposals in the States, gay people here in the UK don’t seem bothered by the technical distinction. All I know is that the incessant aerial quotes on the BBC’s front page are really starting to annoy me, e.g.

@The so-called "BBC"

**Sir Elton ‘wedding’ takes place **

Elton John and David Furnish celebrate their “marriage” as hundreds of gay couples take advantage of new laws.

[SentientMeat]

Here here, DB. Whatever the difference in detail, the inverted commas should be dropped. (This will happen eventually anyway - note how dated an article would look if ieg.* the phrase “on the web” was encapsulted so.)

[SentientMeat]

Or rather, hear hear.

[Sunspace]

So can a legally-married same-sex couple from Canada now immigrate as a couple to the UK?