Gay marriage

inb4 "You can't force the church to marry gay couples!"

Reply 2

So what's the change? :s-smilie:

Reply 3

OP

Original post by Hopple

So what's the change? :s-smilie:

Two things mainly:

Firstly:to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
i.e. to put homosexuals on a level playing field with straight couples who can have civil marriages if they so choose and
Secondly: Individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage

There's more specifics if you go through the survey but those are the two biggies

Reply 4

SquaredCircle

I would think anyone who opposed this would be a fundamentally foul person

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 5

Original post by big-bang-theory

Two things mainly:

Firstly:to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
i.e. to put homosexuals on a level playing field with straight couples who can have civil marriages if they so choose and
Secondly: Individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage

There's more specifics if you go through the survey but those are the two biggies

But the first one already existed under civil partnerships? :s-smilie:

Second one makes sense though, although not that big considering it's just one extra hoop to jump through given you are changing your gender.

Reply 6

Dand218

I've always thought of gays rights when it comes to marriage as the same as when it comes to gays in the military.
Anyone DUMB enough to want to join up or get married should be allowed.

Reply 7

OP

Original post by Hopple

But the first one already existed under civil partnerships? :s-smilie:

Second one makes sense though, although not that big considering it's just one extra hoop to jump through given you are changing your gender.

In practical terms it makes little difference. In symbolic terms it's a blight on our statute books that the difference between homosexual people and straight people's relationships is enshrined in law and a continuing symbol of the homophobia society has historically perpetuated.

Reply 8

username782284

15

By all accounts, Scotland's consultation last year was pretty successful, so hopefully this gets the same kind of response.

Reply 9

Original post by Hopple

But the first one already existed under civil partnerships? :s-smilie:

Second one makes sense though, although not that big considering it's just one extra hoop to jump through given you are changing your gender.

Civil partnerships are a distinct institution from marriages.

As for the the transgender thing, given what a big deal it must be to stay with your partner through their change of gender - especially if you're straight - forcing a couple to divorce in order to get a civil partnership is going to be pretty taxing psychologically even if it's not that big a deal logistically. Also if you're religious you may not believe that divorce is permitted, and you may feel like your relationship is being downgraded.

Reply 10

NDGAARONDI

16

Original post by mmmpie

inb4 "You can't force the church to marry gay couples!"

Well, the Church of England is part of the state so should an arm of the state be allowed to discriminate?

I should set up a religion that promotes anti-miscegenation laws. See the outrage. :colonhash:

Reply 11

Original post by big-bang-theory

In practical terms it makes little difference. In symbolic terms it's a blight on our statute books that the difference between homosexual people and straight people's relationships is enshrined in law and a continuing symbol of the homophobia society has historically perpetuated.

Fair enough. I suppose it's a convenient compromise for religious organisations too :wink:

Reply 12

OP

Original post by NDGAARONDI

Well, the Church of England is part of the state so should an arm of the state be allowed to discriminate?

Right but marriage is both a civil and religious institution where you can have the civil aspect without the religious (as many straight couples do at the moment). More to the point the Church of England has both civil and religious responsibilities, in cases of religious ceremonies (which a religious marriage would kind of tautologically be) it should keep in mind it's religious responsibilities and it is up to the clergy of the church to decide to what extent they will tolerate or carry out religious gay marriages. As the proposals leave them the option to (the emphasis in the fine print seems to be on the choice of individual parishes rather than blanket ban on religious people conducting gay marriages).

If the state is to cater for religious sensibilities as it does through the C of E, so long as it doesn't fail to offer secular alternatives it has no need to force the C of E to prioritise secular over religious concerns. The proposals do this. The argument is equivalent to saying that the department of education ought to offer gay marriage as an arm of the state, the point is specific function.

We can not and ought not dictate morality to the church, but likewise their religious objects ought not to extend to secular society, hence why this proposal is so goddamn awesome.

Original post by NDGAARONDI

I should set up a religion that promotes anti-miscegenation laws. See the outrage. :colonhash:

Well... yeah... but unless you were committing hate speech noone would be legally bound to stop you believing it or force you to operate contrary to your views so long as they weren't harming anyone.

This proposal stops the religious monopoly and marriage and stops the harm without forcing religious people to take on and operate by moral codes they just don't have.

Reply 13

Original post by mmmpie

Civil partnerships are a distinct institution from marriages.

Civil partnerships are the same thing, just a different name, aren't they? I'd imagine they're processed by the same officials too. Though I can see the symbolic argument for combining them.

As for the the transgender thing, given what a big deal it must be to stay with your partner through their change of gender - especially if you're straight - forcing a couple to divorce in order to get a civil partnership is going to be pretty taxing psychologically even if it's not that big a deal logistically. Also if you're religious you may not believe that divorce is permitted, and you may feel like your relationship is being downgraded.

I'd have thought the gender change would be the biggest thing, and the divorce and remarrying would be just a little extra hassle compared to that. It's a good thing to make things easier, but this is hardly a 'big' thing. Also, I'm not sure a religious argument is going to wash too well in a proposal that makes a distinction between civil and religious marriage :wink:

Reply 14

Original post by Noble Requiem

Homosexuals should have no rights - until they are made to see the error of their abominable ways.

It's disgusting to even contemplate 'equality' for such savages.

Charming.

Dare I ask why you think this?

Original post by NDGAARONDI

Well, the Church of England is part of the state so should an arm of the state be allowed to discriminate?

I should set up a religion that promotes anti-miscegenation laws. See the outrage. :colonhash:

My own view is that freedom of religion guarantees that a church can perform their religious rites however they wish, and withhold them from whomever they wish. However, if that rite is going to be recognised as a legal marriage by the state, then the church becomes an agent acting on behalf of the state. In all other matters, if you act for the state you are held to the same standard as the state holds itself, and I don't see why this should be any different, so the Equality act should apply.

In other words, if you want to invoke your freedom of religion to refuse marriage to some couples you can, but then your marriages are purely ceremonial and not binding in law. If you want to conduct marriages which are binding in law, then you must abide by other parts of the law too.

I don't think that's unreasonable, but it's a distinct issue. Realistically, I expect same-sex religious marriage to follow in a few years when more liberal religions (Quakers, Reform Jews, etc) demand the right to perform them.

Reply 15

Original post by Hopple

Civil partnerships are the same thing, just a different name, aren't they? I'd imagine they're processed by the same officials too. Though I can see the symbolic argument for combining them.

Civil Partnership is a distinct institution. Notwithstanding a few minor details, the legal effect is basically the same. Most times when you're asked your marital status Civil Partnership and marriage will be distinct categories, which does require people to out themselves, so that's problematic. Culturally, civil partnerships and marriage have quite different connotations - as you say there's a strong symbolic argument.

Original post by Hopple

I'd have thought the gender change would be the biggest thing, and the divorce and remarrying would be just a little extra hassle compared to that. It's a good thing to make things easier, but this is hardly a 'big' thing. Also, I'm not sure a religious argument is going to wash too well in a proposal that makes a distinction between civil and religious marriage :wink:

It's one example of a reason why compelling people to divorce is not a good thing. Regardless of how you look at it, if one member of a couple is going through gender reassignment that's a fairly onerous time for both of them, and I don't see why we should unnecessarily add to their problems.

Reply 16

Original post by mmmpie

Civil Partnership is a distinct institution. Notwithstanding a few minor details, the legal effect is basically the same. Most times when you're asked your marital status Civil Partnership and marriage will be distinct categories, which does require people to out themselves, so that's problematic. Culturally, civil partnerships and marriage have quite different connotations - as you say there's a strong symbolic argument.

You think the cultural connotations are going to go away because of this?

It's one example of a reason why compelling people to divorce is not a good thing. Regardless of how you look at it, if one member of a couple is going through gender reassignment that's a fairly onerous time for both of them, and I don't see why we should unnecessarily add to their problems.

As I said, I agree with it, except that it isn't a big thing compared to the other things the law requires someone to do in order to change their gender.

Reply 17

OP

Original post by Hopple

You think the cultural connotations are going to go away because of this?

No, of course not but I think it's somewhat important that the state doesn't implicitly reinforce them.

Original post by Hopple

As I said, I agree with it, except that it isn't a big thing compared to the other things the law requires someone to do in order to change their gender.

It's just a relative thing. If it can be made easier simply then we ought to do it. You can argue over the significance of the impact all you like but there's no denying it will have SOME good impact at the very least. In any case I think the impact is primarily rooted in how the individual views each necessary step, to some the dissolution of the marriage (even temporarily) is going to be a really big thing to them. And making them not have to go through that even if there are a small number of them can only be a good thing.

Reply 18