Gay Marriage

[Dave]

I don't see any of the arguments against it hold any water, and I didn't like idea of the two-tier system either - I think it was really to satisfy the concerns of the Church which is increasingly losing touch with reality and obsolescent.

I agree that marriage was around long before the Church, but you are wrong that they are already the same thing; there are some important differences.

My concern is that this Government seems in an inordinate haste to change something within this Parliament that has been largely the same for hundreds, if not thousands of years (though I accept Brian's points on the legal bits, that is where we are now.) This is something which was also not in either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifesto (though the Liberal manifesto has been shown to be little use other than as toilet paper anyway.) Not only that, but I am concerned that in this haste they have not properly thought out all the changes to existing marriage law that will be necessary.

As an example, LBC radio had a phone in on this subject with Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat MP who is leading this through Parliament. The first caller asked if the law on adultery would be altered. Her personal circumstances were that her husband had cheated on her with another man, but under current law this is not adultery. It is unreasonable behaviour, but you need three instances of unreasonable behaviour rather than one of adultery in order to divorce someone.

I was quite staggered at Lynne Featherstone's lack of knowledge on the subject of marriage law, especially from someone who is championing this cause, and I am sure that there will be many other examples of differences between marriage and civil partnerships that require changing to make them perfectly equal. I believe this requires more time and more thought to allow discussion. Where did this current hurry come from?

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Dave

Where did this current hurry come from?

I may being over-cynical here, but my impression is that it's a classic distraction technique. With the budget coming up, the state of the economy, the removal of the 50p tax-rate, the abandonment of the "Mansion Tax," the perceived view of the Tory Party as being for toffs and the rich, etc, etc, something that's as progressive and liberal (with a small "l") as this measure means there's something our beloved leader can point to and say "Yes I know, but look what we're doing for the LGBT community - isn't that good?!"

[Dave]

Originally Posted by pyan

I may being over-cynical here, but my impression is that it's a classic distraction technique.

It may be, but it's a strange thing to choose because it is splitting the Conservative Party and stirring up a hornets nest among Christians, neither of which would have taken much foresight to have seen. So, if it is only being done in the interests of equality then it is quite courageous of Cameron, but if it is a diversion tactic it will backfire.

I may be wrong, but it isn't even a issue that most Gays are concerned about, not now that they have civil partnerships. They might support it, but the support seems lukewarm, as if there are far more important inequalities to be concerned about.

And there are other things that the Parliamentary time could be used for. Apart from the lacklustre economy and pensions within an ageing population, we have looming water and energy shortages that need to be tackled.

Still, as diversion tactics go, and considering yet another foreign war is out of the question, I suppose the list is shortened.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Dave

I may be wrong, but it isn't even a issue that most Gays are concerned about, not now that they have civil partnerships. They might support it, but the support seems lukewarm, as if there are far more important inequalities to be concerned about.

That's almost word-for-word what one of my friends (who's been in a civil partnership with her wife since the act was passed) said to me the other day. She also said that it was counterproductive toward acceptance of the LGBT community, because whereas most people didn't care one way or the other about civil partnerships, marriage is a different matter...

Still, as diversion tactics go, and considering yet another foreign war is out of the question, I suppose the list is shortened.

Well, there's always Prince William empire-building in the Falklands...

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

What I really don't understand about the whole "marriage" thing is why everyone seems to presume that marriage has always been the way it is now.

Er... the formalities required for marriage may have changed a good deal but the substance of what is involved hasn't -- it's been seen as the union of one man to one women in the UK since Christianity arrived here if not before that. And as far as I'm aware polygamy is the same -- it's not a marrage between several people, but between a man and a woman, albeit he is allowed to have several wives. And vice versa for polyandry, of course (not that historically it's been as widespread).

In fact, most of the time (at least 1500+ years) marraige has consisted of nothing more than either a) people being accepted as living together, or b) people saying they are together in front of a couple of other people.

Not quite. A village or city neighbourhood might accept a stable union, but this was not necessarily a marriage as defined by the church -- and what the neighbours decided was important. Marriage was not seen as something between individuals, but as a matter for the community as a whole, because it was seen as the bedrock of society. The popes had decreed in the 12th and 13th centuries that no formal church solemnities were required, so there was obviously discussion before that as to the need, and church ceremonies themselves, if only for the ruling elite or more wealthy.

For those lower down the social strata I'm willing to bet there were folk rituals which may or may not have accorded with the specifics of canon law and the need for a contract per verba de presenti (words of present intent -- to say "I will marry you" would not have been a binding contract since it was future intent). But by the late Middle Ages the church was increasingly hostile to these spousals and insisted they were only pre-marriage betrothals and a church ceremony was required. And although there were exceptions made for customary law in particular areas, common law didn't accept these marriages either, requiring a public ceremony, so the wife and children of an ilicit union would receive no protection or inheritance rights. Again, the lower down the scale, the less importance that might have, but it was not wholly negligable.

Personally I think any couples seen living together for more than 6 months should be automatically considered as married, and all the legal implications - and protections - of that.

Definitely have to disagree with you there. If people want the protection of the law they must walk into it with their eyes open. It's a contract, and should be seen as such. Personally I'd go completely the other way -- only the children of a cohabiting union should have any protection at all. (My divorce law lecturer came to the conclusion that the best way to reduce the number of divorces with all the pain they brought was actually to make marriage harder in the first place -- and the more divorce work I did, the more I agreed with her.)

Originally Posted by Anne Lyle

Until the 16th century, most English marriages were by mutual consent in front of witnesses, with the church acting only as recorder of the event (because the priest was probably one of the few literate people in the village). It wasn't until the 18th century that you had to get married in church, with the calling of the banns, etc, for it to be legal.

Lord Hardwicke's Act 1753 for anyone wanting to know more -- clandestine marrages where young heirs were inveigled into unions with unsuitable women had become too frequent to ignore...

[AnyaKimlin]

Originally Posted by Dave

I may be wrong, but it isn't even a issue that most Gays are concerned about, not now that they have civil partnerships. They might support it, but the support seems lukewarm, as if there are far more important inequalities to be concerned about.

There are those that belong to religious communities that wish to be married by that community. In Scotland Liberal Jews, Quakers, A group of Pagans and some other groups are actually petitioning for gay marriage so they can marry their congregation members.

Also there is the flip side, there are straight couples who want civil partnerships instead of marriage.

[Michael01]

Originally Posted by Warren_Paul

Actually, it's treated exactly the same, just called something else. I think they don't call it marriage to avoid some people who are anti it getting all up in arms.

Interesting. In that case, New Zealand appears to be more progressive about it than the U.S.

EDIT: At least, I think we don't have that kind of a civil union (not in every state, anyway). Things might have changed without me noticing, though, because I haven't kept up with these issues. But I remember about 7 or 8 years ago two friends of mine, a gay couple, had to go to another state to get married.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by pyan

That's almost word-for-word what one of my friends (who's been in a civil partnership with her wife since the act was passed) said to me the other day. She also said that it was counterproductive toward acceptance of the LGBT community, because whereas most people didn't care one way or the other about civil partnerships, marriage is a different matter....

I can see how they may be worried, but I don't think the mob is going to be in the streets because of this change. And once the change has been implemented, with the replacement of the parallel, and identifiable, state of 'being in a civil partnership' with the vanilla, inclusive 'being married', the whole (non-)issue will become far less visible to all but those who are unnecessarily bothered about such things. (And I expect most of them are bothered less by the legal status than by the relationship it describes.)



By the way, I almost became a civil partner, at least in the eyes of HMRC, by mistake. Some years back, HMRC made some changes to their on-line self-assessment forms for individuals, which seemed to wipe out my marital status, something that I didn't notice. Furthermore, and unlike most other fields where it tells you that you've failed to enter required data, it simply took the first item in its list (arranged alphabetically), which happened to be Civil partner (or something similar). I daresay quite a few people suddenly became properly aware of the existence of that possible marital status that year.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by The Judge

Not quite. A village or city neighbourhood might accept a stable union, but this was not necessarily a marriage as defined by the church -- and what the neighbours decided was important. Marriage was not seen as something between individuals, but as a matter for the community as a whole, because it was seen as the bedrock of society.

Depends what era you're looking at - certainly in Roman times simply living together was seen as marriage.

However, you've touched upon an interesting point about community - and that was when we're talking about rural marraiges up to the mediaeval period, we're often talking about arranged marriages of convenience to bring families/clans/tribes together. Definitely not the model that we're looking at as the norm today.


The popes had decreed in the 12th and 13th centuries that no formal church solemnities were required, so there was obviously discussion before that as to the need, and church ceremonies themselves, if only for the ruling elite or more wealthy.

[AMB]

Coming in a little late on this, but I'm actually more interested in how it will affect trans people.

At the moment, in order to get a Gender Recognition Certificate and be fully recognised as the opposite sex by law, you can't be married. This means you need to get an annulment if you are in a marriage or civil partnership, as your union won't be valid once you've got your GRC. You can then have the ceremony with your partner that reflects your current status.

If handled right, perhaps married trans folk won't have to worry about that extra step.

So Pyan's friend who said it is counter-productive to acceptance within the LGBT community may be right, but acceptance aside, it has the potential to make the T portion's lives easier.

[juelz4sure]

Like a famous comedian said (I don't know what his name was) I think same sex marriage should be allowed. They should have the opportunity to just as miserable as everyone else.

[Dave]

Or,
Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution yet.
Mae West

[mosaix]

The Roman Catholic church has suspended communication with the Scottish government over the issue of gay marriage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19305232

Apparently, this is because they "feel all the things they have to say, to date at least, have been completely ignored." Well now they know what it's like to be on the receiving end.

[Gordian Knot]

Originally Posted by Michael01

Interesting. In that case, New Zealand appears to be more progressive about it than the U.S.

EDIT: At least, I think we don't have that kind of a civil union (not in every state, anyway). Things might have changed without me noticing, though, because I haven't kept up with these issues. But I remember about 7 or 8 years ago two friends of mine, a gay couple, had to go to another state to get married.

It has become pretty damned hard NOT to be more progressive than the U.S.

Michael, I cannot imagine how you can not have kept up with the whole issue of the gay! lol. The way people carry on, one would think it the End of Western Civilization as we know it if same sex couples were allowed to be legally joined.

Then again, this has become SO American. Start an illegal war based on lies, people shrug. Amoral bankers bankrupt the country and decimate the economy, people shrug. A corrupt Supreme Court hands the Democratic process over to Big Money, people shrug.

But even think about same sex marriage? Suddenly the people are storming the gates with hammers and pitchforks! I can see why the politicians do this, it gets the focus shifted off of everything they are not doing.

I do not understand why the people themselves fall for this most simplistic of sleight of hand.

[Nerds_feather]

I just don't get how anyone can be against legal gay marriage.

If your church, mosque or temple doesn't want to perform same-sex marriages, so be it. It should be a religious institution's right to say "yes" or "no." It should be a religious institution's right to say "we don't believe in this, won't perform it and don't recommend it."

But a truly liberal democracy (and the US, UK and all other Western European and Anglophone democracies are liberal democracies), cannot distinguish rights based on social categories. Gay people should have exactly the same rights as everyone else, under the law. That very much includes marriage.