UK Marriage and civil unions/partnerships [Archive]

darkeyes

Feb 3, 2012, 12:24 PM

Over the the last year or two there has been a move by some in the heterosexual communty to be given the right to be allowed to enter civil partnerships and not as now civil marriage.. at the same time, we fight for the right of same sex couples to be given the right to marry or have our already legal partnerships considered as marriages.. I am in just such a union.. but to all intents and purposes I am a married woman married to another woman.. it is just that as a sop to the church it is called something different.. it is not a legal marriage, but a civil partnership performed by a registrar and approved of by the state.. it gives me and my partner the same rights and privileges and expects of us both the same responsibilities as any heterosexual couple married either civilly or religiously except of course the legal right to refer to ourselves as married.... so why the difference?

Peter Tatchell, a proponent of lgbt rights that I admire and respect and who has arguably done more for the rights of the lgbt than any other individual in these islands argues that opposite sex couples should have the right to enter civil unions and not marriages.. at the same time he argues that opposite sex couples should have the right to marry.. now take out of the picture the hostility of most religious institutions.. we are discussing the principle of the institution not where and by whom it is performed.. but some religious institutions are in fact quite happy to and argue for religious couples to marry and some that they be allowed religious partnership ceremonies but are presently prevented from doing so by an oppressive law..

..is this not muddled thinking? Why call a union between two people irrespective of gender something different? What it does do, whether we like it or not, is to create in the minds of some, a two tier, discriminatory system of legal union .. and also allows the religious institutions to hold on to their arrogant and presumptious insistence that the concept of marriage is somehow their's alone .. why, if it becomes irrelevant what the gender is of two people entering a marriage /civil ceremony do we have two separate rival institutions which fulfill precisely the same purpose? So we have people married, some in same sex marriages, some in different sex marriages, and we have others, fewer in number because of maintsream religious opposition because not all religious groups are opposed, having undergone a religious ceremony, and others having had a civil ceremony, are they to be considered partnerships or unions? It seems a nonsense to me..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/gay-staight-couples-deserve-equality-now

...and if as is proposed, an enabling act is passed in Scotland or England and Wales with Scotland suffering a deal less angst about it, at some time in the future to allow weddings/ partnership ceremonies between same gender couples, what is the objection? They are not to be forced to hold such ceremonies, merely, should any religious institution wish to now or at some indeterminate stage in the future.. the right will exist for them to do so...

But my main point remains... if same sex and opposite sex couples can marry, and if same sex and opposite sex can enter civil unions or partnerships, when each has in law the same relative status, rights and obligations, why is Tatchell talking such tosh and more importantly, why the difference in legal classification? Why do we not simply amend the law to classify all civil ceremonies between two people as marriages and in those religious institutions which are prepared to do so, why have religious union or partnership ceremonies as some have proposed.. why not marriage in just the same way?

bigbadmax

Feb 3, 2012, 12:33 PM

Currently, in my humble opinion, there is no difference betwenn a cp and a marriage.

If, however, the str8's get their way, then it be-littles the C.P to a second rate status....almost an excuse for str8's to have affairs etc as they are not "married".

DuckiesDarling

Feb 3, 2012, 12:35 PM

bigbadmax

Feb 3, 2012, 12:41 PM

darkeyes

Feb 3, 2012, 1:27 PM

This may sound cheeky but it's not intended to be, Fran. It's Peter Tatchell who you asked the question of, so why not mail him and ask him?

I fully believe in the right for all couples to enter into a marriage, regardless of what any religion or government says. If two people join as mates and are given the same rights and obligations as any other couple, they are MARRIED to me. :2cents: That being said I also believe in the right of anyone in a MARRIAGE to get divorced as we still have some people having issues with their marriage not being valid in one state or the other here in the US.

I intend to darlin' darlin, but the issue is live and relevant to this site I think and it is something bisexual as well as gay people would I think wish to discuss... it isn't a new issue particularly but it is coming to a bit of head with the consultation processes on same sex marriage in both Scotland and England having been ended in the former and on-going in the latter... I have in fact written a personal submission to both parliaments for them to consider and also lobbied a number of parliamentarians of both from across the political spectrum...

Regarding your second paragraph I agree with you entirely, but luckily in the UK, a marriage or civil union performed in any part of the country is legally recognised in the whole of the union as indeed they are if performed in the EU, but it is outwith those areas that recognition so often becomes a problem... and that needs addressing but with so much of the world still so anti lgbt it is something only time and patience I am afraid will resolve....as an aside to what u say here darlin' darlin', it will be interesting that should Scotland as seems most likely, go head with same sex marriage and England and other parts of the UK doesnt which remains a possibility, just what legal status such marriages will have in England, Wales and Northern Ireland because the backwoodsmen of the anti gay marriage predominantly Tory brigade south of the border may well fight a rearguard action to stop such marriages being legally recognised elsewhere and Northern Ireland is probably the least lgbt friendly part of the UK.. that may yet appear in the Supreme Court or the European Court..

..and Max babes... don't be so prickly hun... its actually also a pretty big issue over there in its own way in case u havent noticed... what I am saying sweetheart, is that there should be no partnerships, only marriages, religious or civil.. irrespective of the gender of those involved.. that is true and proper equality..

DuckiesDarling

Feb 3, 2012, 1:52 PM

DD you are talking thru yer bum. This is a very important issue across here, to which you have no idea on its impact or importance. Its been very hard to get C.P's and now there's moves to obliterate their importance. If you are going to give your :2cents: then make them VALID currency.

No, Max, I'm not. She specifically asked why is Tatchell talking such tosh? That was what I was referring to, the rest I answered in my second paragraph. So yeah my 2cents were valid currency. As Fran said, don't be so prickly.

Fran knows very well I am for EQUAL rights for all regardless of gender, sexuality, race or religion.

tenni

Feb 3, 2012, 1:57 PM

Best fortune to the British as they deal with this issue. In Canada, after having equality of marriage regardless of gender since 2006(earlier in some provinces), a lawyer found a loop hole in the original act. I suspect that the Conservative government's caution on not speaking out too quickly is due to their real resistance to this. Voices of complaint were raised when a female couple requested a divorce and they had come to Canada for the marriage. They were told that they could not get a divorce because, a/they had not lived in Canada for a year b/ although they were married in Canada and returned to their own country(USA), where they lived did not accept same sex marriage. Therefore Canada would not let them divorce in Canada. I know..STUPID! :eek: The Con government quickly withdrew after protests were raised quickly.(some ministers said no initially) They would "fix" the error of the previous government. (Liberal). Funny, how there was no problem until the government changed to a party that opposed same sex marriage..was a point not lost on many.

So, now same sex couples marrying in Canada may get a divorce in Canada regardless if their country recognizes same sex marriage.

bigbadmax

Feb 3, 2012, 2:17 PM

No, Max, I'm not. She specifically asked why is Tatchell talking such tosh? That was what I was referring to, the rest I answered in my second paragraph. So yeah my 2cents were valid currency. As Fran said, don't be so prickly.

Fran knows very well I am for EQUAL rights for all regardless of gender, sexuality, race or religion.

oh,and im being prickly hey !wash that black pot DD before you call the kettle black.

Long Duck Dong

Feb 3, 2012, 5:46 PM

in NZ we have the choice of marriage or civil union......but marriage carries something in the legal wording that stops same sex marriage, and that is that a marriage ceremony must contain the wording ( or similar ) of taking a woman to be your wife and a man to be your husband...

incidentally that allows trans people ( as long at they have changed their sex / gender legally ) to have a marriage...... and that is something that I found very interesting.... there was minimal opposition to trans people being married and that most of the opposition to the civil union, was cos it allowed gays ( males ) to be joined in a union... not so much lesbians... never mind the fact that a civil union was open to all people regardless of sexuality and partner.....

the trouble with making it marriage for all in NZ, is that there is opposition to having a single state of union, not on the grounds of all are equal, but that many people would not get married, they want a civil union as its less restrictive and carries a lot less of the * stigma * that comes with marriage....

that is where a issue arises, as people have a choice ( for the most part ) in NZ between civil union and marriage.... and if a move went ahead to make it marriage for all, many would fight against it as they do not wish to be married.... they enjoy their civil union......

sometime equality is not all about having the same thing... its about having a choice equally.....

Gearbox

Feb 3, 2012, 5:48 PM

I think it is easier to legislate equality where no religious aspect is involved. CP's don't effect 'freedom of religion'. Marriages do, somehow.
We've all seen the "Don't let those homo's ruin the sanctity of marriage!" vids? (charming as they are).
Well same sex marriage has to deal with that, whereas CP's don't.

If there were enough hetero's turning to CP's we might just break that traditional bigotry. I doubt it would catch on though, as it's just to raise a discrimination point.
BUT it could just work in practice.:tongue:

darkeyes

Feb 3, 2012, 7:18 PM

I think it is easier to legislate equality where no religious aspect is involved.

John F Kennedy said of putting men on the moon that they werent doing so because it would be easy but because it was going to be hard.. gaining equality works on the same principle whether or not religion is involved...... why do we keep bringing it back to religion? We are equal or we are not... and if we are it means that we have the same right to be married as any religious person and as any heterosexual couple.. religious institutions have the right to stop us marrying in accord with their ceremonies and in their churches, synagogues, mosques and temples, but they do not have the right to stop us being married...

Light_and_Dark

Feb 3, 2012, 7:38 PM

Gearbox

Feb 3, 2012, 7:58 PM

Well I was wondering about that. There's a lovely castle that hosts wedding etc near me, and that seems to be 'non religious'. I'm not sure about who does the marrying though.
But even so, there is opposition to same sex marriage, and that is a worldwide recognition of legal matrimony. Not so for CP, and that makes it so much harder to make it universal.

I doubt religion will be kept out of it. We may not see or hear it, but it's there, and in numbers. For every 1 that relax and let common decency & fair play to enfold, there's probably 100 out there with petitions, votes, vids, campaigns to keep the fires burning.

Look at these poor abused innocent citizens in America Fran!:eek: The poor bas*ards! They are being victimised, bless their cockles!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
I bet it's not an American phenomena! Not with the UK covert OP's squad around.:tongue:

darkeyes

Feb 3, 2012, 8:06 PM

If I believe that I should be allowed to steal your tv because it is part of my belief system as your belief tries to dictate that marriage(the type being fought over) should not belong to any religion even though it is a religious act.

That is a big reason why this discussion keeps coming back to religion is because it is about religion. A civil union is a NON RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE period. You want marriage then you have to give in to the religious groups that host them. If i want to watch the football game on a 50 in tv i have to abide by your houses rules not try and steal your tv. OR I could save the money and buy one myself(civil union marriage). the matter is not making marriage allowed but getting heterosexuals to view a civil union for the lgbt community as the same commitment and love as a marriage...atypically people that would get civil unions as heterosexuals are people that want nothing to do with the religious part of marriage which is WHY they get them...You want marriage you have to give in to the dogma of religion which means in the end of the day homosexual MARRIAGE is wrong and will be fought by people strong of faith tooth and nail.

It is about religion because of the insistence by many, not all religious people that it belongs to the religious.. it does not which is in part why in 1915 this country began to allow civil marriages... and why civil marriages are and have been a feature of life in many countries around the world...even before civil marriage the concept of common law marriage existed outwith any religious body.. in some countries it remains a legal concept.. my own for instance...

People of strong faith have fought tooth and nail over many things over centuries including retaining the power of the Church over monarch and state for a start..and as monarchies became republics, those republics and even the monarchies which remained further pushed back the power and influence of the church...the state is supreme, not the church... the state decides the law and who and cannot be married... the church and religion long ago lost those arguments and they will lose more.. even the very fact that we have the debate and that governments are seriously considering and some have even implemented same sex marriage, shows that in the west at least, the people, as embodied by the state, are supreme over any and all religious institutions.. the concept of marriage for all irrespective of gender is yet another issue that it is about time they lost..and they will before long...

Long Duck Dong

Feb 3, 2012, 8:24 PM

part of the issue that is not being addressed, and I referred to it earlier in the thread.... is that NOT all people want marriage, they want a choice......

we have to be careful that we do not end up being blind to the right of choice for people to have a marriage or a civil union.....as we can become so blind to anything beyond our own viewpoint

I will give a example of the way some people view it in NZ

marriage= husband and wife
civil union= partner and partner
marriage = man and woman
civil union = partner and partner

a civil union gives people more freedom during the ceremony and afterwards as to how they see and address their partners....... but we still find that on legal documents, they are addressed as MR and MRS... and MRS actually refers to be of the husband..... something that is incorrect in marriages / civil unions where there is no husband..... and it can reinforce the *stance * that the male is the head of the household... which harks back to the bible and so the nature of marriage as being a woman leaving her home and taking her place in the household of a man.....

by pushing to have marriage as the single choice for people... its railroading people into that aspect of marriage against their will and choice.....hence why a lot of heterosexuals that had civil unions, did so because they could be joined as equals, not as the *possession * of the male and so they would not be a MRS but a equal partner.....

some people I know that are in civil unions, identify as MR and MS ...... as MS refers to a woman regardless of martial status.......

it is a point to bear in mind when pushing for marriage for all... that not all want to be married and take on the MR/MRS aspect of marriage... they enjoy the civil union and the understanding of equality within a union

darkeyes

Feb 3, 2012, 9:04 PM

Duckie.. I thought long and hard before finally deciding firmly on my position.. I don't like dictating to any how they should consider their situation.. yet I look on it this way.. to enter a civil union or partnership, as I have, I have been sneered at by the married.. those who are civilly and religiously married.. because it is not looked on as a real union of two people committing themselves to spend their lives together (I know.., but humour me.. thats the theory).. we are considered a second class union by even some of our own..somehow less.. even by some who are supporters of the lgbt.. to eliminate this I can see no alterative to one kind of union.. u can call it a union or partnership or marriage it doesnt matter much really.. but I think millions of married people being told they are no longer married and are now in a civil or a religious union will have quite a bit to say about it, or those who wish to be married can only enter a civil or religious union also.... 2/3 of people in this country support the concept of marriage for same sex couples.. to have separate classes of union doing exactly the same thing creates a discrimination and a class system which in time will prove, in my view divisive.. every fibre in my being tells me that there is only one step we must take and that is to have all unions of people, irrrespective of gender to be classed as such unions until recently always have.. as marriages...

.. how people call themselves is their affair.. it is increasingly common for married women not to change their surname and there is no legal rquirement for them to do so.. and also more call themselves Ms whether married or not.. there is no legal requirement to refer to a married woman as Mrs and fewer allow it every year.. neither is it a legal requirement that a man is referred to as Mr..they are courtesy titles and people may use them or not as they wish... my surname and Kate's are as they have always been... how legal documents are prepared is largely in our own hands, and this is hardly an insurmountable problem and even now the courtesy titles of Mr, Mrs and Ms are very often not contained at all on such documents.. anything we do jointly has my name first simply because the 1st letter of both my surname and forename come before the 1st letter of Kate's in the alphabet, but if she wanted it the other way around thats ok with me.... nothing denotes possession or superiority... it is simply logical and good common sense.. but there are other ways people can sort out such things.. that is for them to decide.. such arguments do not remove from my argument at all.. they are obstructions within the minds of some.. human made difficulties which are window dressing not real... easily overcome with a little thought and a little care as well as a little awareness...

.. in the end it boils down to this.. do we as gay lesbian and bisexual people want proper equality or not?

Long Duck Dong

Feb 3, 2012, 10:29 PM

equality is a state of mind, fran.....and that is the issue...... you pinpoint it in your own post and in your own words.....

every fibre in my being tells me that there is only one step we must take and that is to have all unions of people, irrrespective of gender to be classed as such unions until recently always have.. as marriages...

your stance would remove civil union for people as a choice, force them to have to use the marriage option... and you do that under the guise of equality when in fact its removal of choice for people......and that often is what is the issue with equality... its about removal of rights and choices.....

in NZ if they made it marriage for all.... then many people would be forced to change to marriage or get divorced as the union they are happy with, is no longer recognized as a union of two people in love.....

so I put it to you fran, does your right to be legally married matter more than my right to have a civil union ? cos my right to have a civil union, should not interfere or prevent you being married......

or is it more about you want to shut people up cos you do not like what they are saying about your marriage with kate....

read the following.... the bold parts show why people are perfering a civil union over a marriage in NZ....... and why many people can see a big difference between a marriage ( religious / traditional role model and social structures ) and a civil union ( more in line with a couple that work together and compliment each other as inequals that create a equality as a union )

NZ marriage ceremony laws (http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-Marriages-Frequently-Asked-Questions?OpenDocument)

What are the legal requirements for all marriage ceremonies?
The legal requirements are that:
The marriage must be performed by a Marriage Celebrant or Registrar of Marriages at the place specified on the marriage licence;
The marriage must be performed in the presence of at least two witnesses; and During the ceremony, and before at least two witnesses, each party must say the words "I AB take you CD, to be my legal wife/husband" or words to similar effect.
Both parties and witnesses sign the registration forms

NZ civil union ceremony laws (http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-Civil-Union?OpenDocument)

During the ceremony before a civil union celebrant, and before at least two witnesses, each party must make a clear statement to the other that names both parties and acknowledges that they are freely joining in a civil union with each other.

darkeyes

Feb 4, 2012, 4:43 AM

Duckie.. it is a relatively simple job to change any form of words to take accout of any circumstances.. the rights read to arrestees was changed while Thatcher was in office for instance without too much hassle rightly or wrongly.. but I understand the points u make and dont think I havent thought it myself.. would I accept it were civil unions allowed for heterosexuals and marriage for same sender couples? Of course I would.. that does not mean I have changed my mind.. it means let's get the principle of marrige for the likes of us accepted and then fight the rest of the war.. it may well be a long lonely one from my point of view.. but I'll live with that.. i've been fighting long lonely issues all my adult life.. and I wont stop now..

Long Duck Dong

Feb 4, 2012, 5:06 AM

darkeyes

Feb 4, 2012, 2:20 PM

Dontcha worry ya pretty lil bonce bout it, duckie.. wudnt b so much fun if u an I agreed wud it? An me will happily bang ya lil bonce against the wall... (jkn.. pacifist memba?):tong:

dafydd

Feb 5, 2012, 12:33 AM

Careful not to seperate LGBT apart from religion always. They can and do coexist. There are many religious people who are also 'out' as LGBT and in relationships. What about, let's say a Chrisitian lesbian couple who want to sanctify their union under the church? How does civil partnership help them achieve that? For some couples, the religious aspect is more important than the legal protection afforded by a state union.

PS this thread has number of perjorative references to heterosexuals e.g.' heteros',' if the str8s get their way' etc.
Am i the only only one uncomfortable reading that? It's more the contemptous tone e.g. them against us. It's not a war!!Oftentimes there are complaints about biphobia on this forum and disregard/disrespect for bisexuals, yet we can somehow overlook how we refer to others....?
Think this is part of another thread really, which I'll start and links in with the experiment stuff. I'll just flag it here for anyone reading this in isolation of anything else on the forum.

Long Duck Dong

Feb 5, 2012, 2:22 AM

dafydd you raise a interesting aspect of LGBT life... the christian / religious LGBT people... and yes I do get uncomfortable myself with the way that religion / christianity is constantly rubbished, yet its a big part of some peoples lives.... in the same way that a big part of our families / partners / allies are also heterosexual and / or religious / christian......

while I have issues with marriage ( personal beliefs ) its part of why I have the open sided stance I do... as I would not like to infringe on the rights of others to have their ceremony in a religious / christian manner.... be the people religious / christian or not.......and be they heterosexual / lgbt.....

darkeyes

Feb 5, 2012, 5:59 AM

and people wonder why I hate marriage...... we are fighting for the rights to be involved in a religious based / male oriented ceremony, so we can have our unions.... instead of taking a step aside ( civil unions ) and removing the control and power of the church from the equation......

its like banging our heads against a concrete wall so we can make a hole to get thru it...while there is a door right beside us that we are refusing to use cos its the wrong type of door

...an interesting statement.. because by sitting back, and accepting what, and possibly even if, civil unions shall be, we enhance the influence and control of the Church and other religious institions over one very important aspect of our lives.. it allows those religions to hold that marriage is theirs and theirs alone. Mainstream churches here have already set their face against even conducting religious civil partnerships, or even allowing blessings of civil partnership ceremonies, but that isn't the issue here.. it is who owns the word marriage.. the religions or the people? I argue neither, but I do argue that only the people, through the state and their elected representatives have the right to decide what marriage is, and who has the right to marry, and in what form without imposing their will on institutions such as the Church who, for reasons of faith (even if often born of bigotry) have their own view of what marriage is and for whom, because not all people are of one religion, not even one denomination of one religion and many, have none at all...

The argument about religions performing religious union ceremonies for same gender couples is one which must be fought within those bodies, as Duckie is the argument about their male orientation and domination.. and it is being fought, with the appointment of increasing numbers of female clergy one example in many churches, and with many ministers, vicars and pastors on our side..that there will be pressure from outside of the relgions or them to change is right and proper, just as they have the right to pressurise and influence our societies with their own view..

I have said that I will gladly accept marriage and civil union for all running concurrently and I shall and do.. but I see it as a mistake if we accept that as the final solution.. because it does encourage and will encourage forms of discrimination many of which as yet we havent even thought of and in time could well prove divisive and not to our advantage... some think it petty of me, but I argue that it is a valid principle that we should have one institution, culturally equal for all which leaves no doubt in the minds of society what union of two people means and is..

Long Duck Dong

Feb 5, 2012, 6:21 AM

...an interesting statement.. because by sitting back, and accepting what, and possibly even if, civil unions shall be, we enhance the influence and control of the Church and other religious institions over one very important aspect of our lives.. it allows those religions to hold that marriage is theirs and theirs alone. Mainstream churches here have already set their face against even conducting religious civil partnerships, or even allowing blessings of civil partnership ceremonies, but that isn't the issue here.. it is who owns the word marriage.. the religions or the people? I argue neither, but I do argue that only the people, through the state and their elected representatives have the right to decide what marriage is, and who has the right to marry, and in what form without imposing their will on institutions such as the Church who, for reasons of faith (even if often born of bigotry) have their own view of what marriage is and for whom, because not all people are of one religion, not even one denomination of one religion and many, have none at all...

The argument about religions performing religious union ceremonies for same gender couples is one which must be fought within those bodies, as Duckie is the argument about their male orientation and domination.. and it is being fought, with the appointment of increasing numbers of female clergy one example in many churches, and with many ministers, vicars and pastors on our side..that there will be pressure from outside of the relgions or them to change is right and proper, just as they have the right to pressurise and influence our societies with their own view..

I have said that I will gladly accept marriage and civil union for all running concurrently and I shall and do.. but I see it as a mistake if we accept that as the final solution.. because it does encourage and will encourage forms of discrimination many of which as yet we havent even thought of and in time could well prove divisive and not to our advantage... some think it petty of me, but I argue that it is a valid principle that we should have one institution, culturally equal for all which leaves no doubt in the minds of society what union of two people means and is..

if the churches want to argue amongst themselves, I could not give a toss...... but the civil union in NZ, is seperate from church and state..... something that was clearly stated when the civil union was created.....and its something that pissed the church off, is it crippled their argument against the rights of lgbt to be joined in a union....

as for the fate of people that are LGBT and religious, well, I am not going to stick my nose in there and start supporting them with a fight inside their own church, cos I want the church to stay out of my business...... so the least I can do, is stick by the rules I want them to play by.....

yes I will support religious / christian LGBT with their quest to be married, as a basic human right..... but that is as far as it goes.....

unfortunately fran, you and I will have to disagree.... I do not agree that we need to have one institution, as that is exactly what the church is trying to do...... and all you are doing, is telling the church that they are wrong, then saying that your view is right.... a singular form of union....
the thing is fran, not everybody has the same view of marriage and civil union that you do..... something I have stated before.... and it could well end up with people like me, fighting against people like you for our right to a civil union, and not be forced to accept your *marriage * ideal

there will always be discrimination on one level or another.... and the most common way to deal with it, is to remove any other avenues of expression, something that I have mentioned many times... equality is nothing short of conformity.... and that is emphased by your desire for a singular form of union that would remove my rights to a union of my choice...... I call that discrimination... as you are discriminating against people that perfer a civil union, cos you perfer marriage........

DuckiesDarling

Feb 5, 2012, 6:28 AM

Fran, I see a lot of people who choose not to get married for one reason or the other, it's their choice. I have read several stories in both New Zealand news and US news about couples who openly stated they didn't need a piece of paper to show their love and they refused, at least in the States, to "marry" until all states extended the same rights to all couples. For another example, look at Brad Pitt and Anjelina Jolie who refuse to get married until everyone is allowed to be married. But those that choose to be in a civil partnership should have that choice. It shouldn't be forced upon them. I may view even the civil unions as marriages because to me it's two people in love joining together but some have to have the distinct difference in their head to finish getting it out of their ass :tongue:

darkeyes

Feb 5, 2012, 7:47 AM

Equality Duckie is not and never has been about conformity.. equality is about people having the opportunity to maximise their potential, enhance difference and use their talents to soar to the heavens without prejudice.. we have a very different view of that little word and what it means.. whether or not people commit themselves into some form of legal or even voluntary form of union isn't that important to me.. having the right so to do is.. it simply seems potty to me, to accept the two tier form of union when both achive the same thing and have the same rights, privileges and obligations.. forms of words arent relevant, for they can always be adapted and amended.. it is how we view the union and what we as individuals want and expect from it.. it is how society views the union and what it expects from it, whatever it is called.. or they are..

I believe that in time, should we go down the route as is very possible, of having both unions, civil or religious, and marriages, both civil and religious for same gender couples in time we shall come to regret it even if unions, civil or religpous are open to opposite gender couples..of course I may be wrong, but I see dangers inherent in that arrangemet which in future could and is likely to create problems for same gender couples particularly, and by accepting such arrangements fr even the best of reasons holds back the struggle for proper equality for gay, lesbian and bisexual people...

Not all discrimination is wrong Duckie.. it is why we discriminate that is the problem.. we discriminate every day of our lives in perfectly acceptable ways.. some are less than acceptable as we all know, and based on base prejudice and bigotry born of ignorance.. my fear, and what I envision is that in time, by accepting this dual union arrangement, whether or not both forms exist or not for unions of people of whatever gender, it will prove divisive and problematical for the lgbt, and will hold back the struggle for equal rights, acceptance and understanding of our kind by those in society at large.... instead of simply being, different certainly, we are seen to be different in what is an unhealthy way by many and have that used against us... I do not want some bland society where everyone is the same.. but do want one where we make it as difficult as possible for those who are not our friends to use what we are, the way we live, who we are and the institutions of which we may be a part against us.. that may never happen.. but it is a fear I hold and it is one which is valid, and to some degree, the rearguard against marriage for same sex couples by many couples and institutions is but a hint that it will do just that..

I repeat.. do we want equality or not with the heterosexual world? Or do we want to live in an apartheid world of seperate development? Time will tell who is right... those who feel as you do, just as those who feel as me, may or may not be right, but time may yet make them regret the decision to opt for the two tier union system.. equal under the law.. for now.. maybe.. my view is as it has always been.. absolute equality under the law for all... the two tier kind of system you support does not in my opinion provide that except in the most superficial manner... it is intended to keep us separate and somehow less.. to emphasise that we are not as what is considered "normal" society and that we are somehow less than acceptable..

Long Duck Dong

Feb 5, 2012, 8:59 AM

ok fran... think of it this way.... there is a hand binding which for people like me, carry a totally different understanding to a marriage......

a marriage is til death, boredom, infidelity, lack of sex, your name is britney spears, your secretary is better looking than the wife, you can marry a penthouse pet 30 years younger than you, etc, do you part.....

a handbinding... is permanent... its unbroken as its not a ring on a finger, its a pledge to a person that lasts for the rest of my life.... even if me and DD were to separate and wed another, there is still a connection there, that DD knows, would mean she could call for me, any time day or night, and I would come.........

its a totally different caliber of understanding / commitment / honor / loyalty and dedication to a person....

you can remain stuck on the * keeping up with the heteros * all you want... its showing clearly in your posts that its more of a personal issue than you are admitting to yourself..... but for people like me, its not about * getting the last word *.... its about something far more important to us..... and that was no better emphasized than in one of the other threads about this type of thing, when I was told by another poster, just to do the marriage ceremony and then do the real ceremony later...... that is a clear example of the different between people and their understanding of marriage vows... and my commitment to my partner that is a vow that I can NEVER break

people make a mockery of marriage all the time.... I don't.... hence I value the opportunity to have a civil union, as its something seperate from the sham that is called marriage, and I mean no offence to the people that really put their heart and souls in to their marriages...... unlike britney spears