B1550 – Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Amendment) Bill 2020. Watch

This discussion is closed.
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Wrong. Without the amendment, the mission cannot perform it if there's an objection. That is the difference.
But you've just told me that even if there are objections embassies have continued to perform the ceremony before. Therefore your statement is false.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#62
Report 3 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by Joleee)
can you please stop calling it 'gay marriage'. it's just marriage.
The reason members of the House are referring to gay marriage is because this bill concerns the right of homosexual (ie gay) couples to marry.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#63
Report 3 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
The reason members of the House are referring to gay marriage is because this bill concerns the right of homosexual (ie gay) couples to marry.
But it hurts our feelings singling it out as gay marriage
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#64
Report 3 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
The reason members of the House are referring to gay marriage is because this bill concerns the right of homosexual (ie gay) couples to marry.
thanks for the clarification because i was confused over this bill.

there is no such as 'gay marriage'. no one gets a 'gay marriage' certificate. when people call me at work for marriage advice, they don't say 'please i need help for my gay marriage'.

the longer we say 'gay marriage', the longer you and everyone else sees it as the 'other' type of marriage, which is what i'm trying to combat. that was not why i'm against this bill, but thanks for asking.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#65
Report 3 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by Joleee)
thanks for the clarification because i was confused over this bill.

there is no such as 'gay marriage'. no one gets a 'gay marriage' certificate. when people call me at work for marriage advice, they don't say 'please i need help for my gay marriage'.

the longer we say 'gay marriage', the longer you and everyone else sees it as the 'other' type of marriage, which is what i'm trying to combat. that was not why i'm against this bill, but thanks for asking.
Are the people getting married gay? Is the marriage between two people of the same sex?

If you answer yes to any of them it's gay marriage. Whether you like it or not gay marriage is a thing in the same way a trans woman is a trans woman, and an elderly man is an elderly man
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#66
Report 3 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Are the people getting married gay? Is the marriage between two people of the same sex?

If you answer yes to any of them it's gay marriage. Whether you like it or not gay marriage is a thing in the same way a trans woman is a trans woman, and an elderly man is an elderly man
i don't understand your last sentence to be honest.

there's no such thing as a 'gay marriage' certificate. a marriage certificate is a marriage certificate, independent of your sexuality. but if you think there's one and 'the other' then you are just exemplifying the problem i've already mentioned.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#67
Report 3 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by Joleee)
i don't understand your last sentence to be honest.

there's no such thing as a 'gay marriage' certificate. a marriage certificate is a marriage certificate, independent of your sexuality. but if you think there's one and 'the other' then you are just exemplifying the problem i've already mentioned.
Gay marriage is as much an adjective as it is a noun
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#68
Report 3 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Are the people getting married gay? Is the marriage between two people of the same sex?

If you answer yes to any of them it's gay marriage. Whether you like it or not gay marriage is a thing in the same way a trans woman is a trans woman, and an elderly man is an elderly man
A marriage cannot have a sexuality. It is a ceremony, a certificate and a legal status. The two persons who are within a marriage, may possess any kind of sexuality, and they may be described as gay, as can their relationship. But a marriage is not gay just as much as it is not straight.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#69
Report 3 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by Joleee)
thanks for the clarification because i was confused over this bill.

there is no such as 'gay marriage'. no one gets a 'gay marriage' certificate. when people call me at work for marriage advice, they don't say 'please i need help for my gay marriage'.

the longer we say 'gay marriage', the longer you and everyone else sees it as the 'other' type of marriage, which is what i'm trying to combat. that was not why i'm against this bill, but thanks for asking.
The rule at the moment is that a British consulate or embassy may marry two British citizens in accordance with the wishes of the host country. In practice, this means that if the consulate/embassy is in a country where marriage is defined as being between a man and woman, or where sodomy laws are in effect, the consulate cannot conduct a gay marriage.

This Bill would change the law to allow British consulates/embassies to marry a gay couple (ie a man and a man, or a woman and a woman) regardless of whether the host country permits homosexual acts and/or gay marriage.

For reasons I have explained upthread I shall abstain.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#70
Report 3 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by 04MR17)
But you've just told me that even if there are objections embassies have continued to perform the ceremony before. Therefore your statement is false.
They are not British. British laws don't apply.

They were relevant because someone was saying doing it when it's not legal in the host country or when the host country objects, it'd break "international law".
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#71
Report 3 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by The Mogg)
But it hurts our feelings singling it out as gay marriage
I suppose it does imply straight marriages not being very merry.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#72
Report 3 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
The rule at the moment is that a British consulate or embassy may marry two British citizens in accordance with the wishes of the host country. In practice, this means that if the consulate/embassy is in a country where marriage is defined as being between a man and woman, or where sodomy laws are in effect, the consulate cannot conduct a gay marriage.

This Bill would change the law to allow British consulates/embassies to marry a gay couple (ie a man and a man, or a woman and a woman) regardless of whether the host country permits homosexual acts and/or gay marriage.

For reasons I have explained upthread I shall abstain.
:congrats:great. also i will say hell to the nay.

but has nothing to do with my stance on what it means to be 'married' in the UK. happy to argue why heterosexual marriage is no different than your 'gay marriage'. but i agree with the arguments from 04 and Jammy in this dispute re Hong Kong.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report 3 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by Joleee)
thanks for the clarification because i was confused over this bill.

there is no such as 'gay marriage'. no one gets a 'gay marriage' certificate. when people call me at work for marriage advice, they don't say 'please i need help for my gay marriage'.

the longer we say 'gay marriage', the longer you and everyone else sees it as the 'other' type of marriage, which is what i'm trying to combat. that was not why i'm against this bill, but thanks for asking.
Nobody is suggesting that. If I say only marriage instead of gay marriage or same-sex marriage (which is in the title of the act), none of them comments would've made sense. In what country would marriage in general be illegal? Which countries would oppose to performing marriage in general?

You're overly sensitive. I'm here trying to make same-sex marriage more accessible to Britons overseas and you are seemingly thinking I'm trying to say same-sex marriages are unequal to general marriages.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#74
Report 3 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Nobody is suggesting that. If I say only marriage instead of gay marriage or same-sex marriage (which is in the title of the act), none of them comments would've made sense. In what country would marriage in general be illegal? Which countries would oppose to performing marriage in general?

You're overly sensitive. I'm here trying to make same-sex marriage more accessible to Britons overseas and you are seemingly thinking I'm trying to say same-sex marriages are unequal to general marriages.
no, i'm saying that overriding an Act of Parliament and the rule of international law is not legitimate for whatever you are trying to achieve. don't care who you are trying to marry in the process to be honest.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#75
Report 3 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
They are not British. British laws don't apply.

They were relevant because someone was saying doing it when it's not legal in the host country or when the host country objects, it'd break "international law".
You don't seem to be making any sense to me (using more commas might help), but I am trying very hard based on the information you've provided to understand what change this bill is trying to cause. According to the amendment you're trying to put through, the current law (100% British) states that if a government objects to a marriage ceremony within a British embassy within that country, then the ceremony should not go ahead. Yet you have also stated in this thread that "in reality, it has been done with and without an objection". Therefore if that clause isn't actually enforced then there isn't a point in removing it anyway, so the bill has no change in reality.

As a result one of the following statements is correct:
- The OP does not say that current law requires there to be no objection from the host country
- In reality, it has not been done with and without an objection
- This bill doesn't change anything

Which of these statements are correct? If all are incorrect then it seems you're contradicting yourself.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#76
Report 3 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by Joleee)
no, i'm saying that overriding an Act of Parliament and the rule of international law is not legitimate for whatever you are trying to achieve. don't care who you are trying to marry in the process to be honest.
It does not break international law.

Amending an act of parliament is not "overriding" an act of parliament.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#77
Report 3 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by 04MR17)
You don't seem to be making any sense to me (using more commas might help), but I am trying very hard based on the information you've provided to understand what change this bill is trying to cause. According to the amendment you're trying to put through, the current law (100% British) states that if a government objects to a marriage ceremony within a British embassy within that country, then the ceremony should not go ahead. Yet you have also stated in this thread that "in reality, it has been done with and without an objection". Therefore if that clause isn't actually enforced then there isn't a point in removing it anyway, so the bill has no change in reality.

As a result one of the following statements is correct:
- The OP does not say that current law requires there to be no objection from the host country
- In reality, it has not been done with and without an objection
- This bill doesn't change anything

Which of these statements are correct? If all are incorrect then it seems you're contradicting yourself.
Since you're so confused, I'll just put it like this:

UK missions have performed gay marriage in places where gay marriage is not legal.
UK missions have chosen not to perform gay marriage in some places where gay marriage is legal.
-- These demonstrate that we don't need to consider local law.

Non-UK missions have performed gay marriage in places where the host country objected to such a practice.
UK missions have performed actions (but not gay marriage) that the host country objected.
-- In none of these situations did the non-UK and UK missions got into trouble. These dealt with the claim that it would break international law.

The change is:
UK missions currently must legally ask for a non-objection. With the amendment, UK missions will not need to ask for a non-objection, and can choose to perform it anyway even with an objection, if they have the political and diplomatic reasons to do so.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#78
Report 3 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Since you're so confused, I'll just put it like this:

UK missions have performed gay marriage in places where gay marriage is not legal.
UK missions have chosen not to perform gay marriage in some places where gay marriage is legal.
-- These demonstrate that we don't need to consider local law.
I don't know why you keep bringing this up. It has nothing to do with the question.
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Non-UK missions have performed gay marriage in places where the host country objected to such a practice.
UK missions have performed actions (but not gay marriage) that the host country objected.
-- In none of these situations did the non-UK and UK missions got into trouble. These dealt with the claim that it would break international law.
Ah, the truth appears. So this is the correct statement. Thank you for clarifying.
In reality, it has not been done with and without an objection
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#79
Report 3 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by 04MR17)
I don't know why you keep bringing this up. It has nothing to do with the question.
Ah, the truth appears. So this is the correct statement. Thank you for clarifying.
In reality, it has not been done with and without an objection
I have never hidden that fact. I have stressed that multiple times as that is the only change. Next time perhaps you should read the posts more carefully.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#80
Report 3 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
I have never hidden that fact. I have stressed that multiple times as that is the only change. Next time perhaps you should read the posts more carefully.
How about take your own advice?

(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Has Spain been taken to an international court for supposedly breaking international law, then? I have already pointed out that in reality, it has been done with and without an objection, regardless of the legality of same-sex marriage in the host country (which is not a factor at all).
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
There's literally no difference between having an objection or not having one.
Last edited by 04MR17; 3 weeks ago
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.53%
No (241)
33.47%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed