(no subject)

[ramtops]

it's very good to see gay couples getting the same rights as heterosexual married couples (see Guardian link).

but where are the rights for straight, unmarried couples. I have many friends living in long term unmarried relationships, and this is discrimination, pure and simple.

what's the justification? The "sanctity of marriage"?

Comments

I do understand..

[etriganuk.livejournal.com]

Though I've not yet heard codified the list of things unmarried heterosexuals couples can't assert. Or why they want treated differently from other couples - even homosexuals are going to have sign paperwork to get the rights - in what way is that different from going to a registry office and signing the paperwork with the minimum of ceremony?

Re: I do understand..

[captainblue.livejournal.com]

Quite.

[vampwillow]

It is not just *any* gay or lesbian couples who will 'get rights', but only those who choose to make a public, recorded, validated and certified registration of that coupledom.

For stright people, this opportunity is termed 'marriage' whether religeous-in-church or civil-in-registry-office (and for some they need both where their particular religion is not authorised).

For Gay and Lesbian people this opportunity will only be termed 'registered partnership', but everything else will be just about the same (oh, except civil option only)

The discrimination is not against straight couples who *choose* not to 'marry', but against gay and lesbian couples having to make do with the second-rate term 'partnership', as though it is aloo some sort of business transaction and love has nothing to do with it.

[ramtops.livejournal.com]

but lots of straight couples "choose not to marry", for whatever reason. I think they should also be allowed to register their partnership.

please don't misunderstand me - I'm delighted that at last, gay couples can do this (and I don't think it goes nearly far enough). But I think it wrong that straight couples must go through a marriage ceremony to get the same rights.

[vampwillow]

a major part of the problem is that word 'Marry/iage'. It is almost as if it is imbued with a special meaning other than 'partnership recorded officially'. Of course, for some people who come from the religeous side of it, it is.

But it shouldn't be.

I would be happy (as written in my own LJ) for *all* couples to have to have a civil resistration and then choose *optionally* to do the religious bit ...

[ramtops.livejournal.com]

a major part of the problem is that word 'Marry/iage'

indeed.

[ias.livejournal.com]

I think it is wrong that gay couples aren't allowed to go through a marriage ceremony to get these rights.

If the Government had some backbone and just opened up civil marriage to couples of any gender, then we wouldn't have this problem of thinking that this sop to equality is discrimination against unmarried hets. Heterosexual couples can always get married. They have always had that option. Gay couples haven't, and they should. They shouldn't have to be thankful for some sort of 'marriage-lite' (but don't call it marriage!) It is insulting to assume gay couples aren't good enough to be married.

I'm really split over this bill - I welcome recognition but I think it is half-arsed and likely to put back the journey to full equality by several years.

Sever the ties that bind!

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

I think the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely. And religion should get out of the business of civil unions.

I would propose that the government, or rather, the governments, be required to accept the registration of any two legally competent adults in a civil union. Regardless of gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, sex life, et cetera.

I would propose that the rights - private and civil - now accorded to people who are now considered "married" be extended to any couple so registered.

I would propose that religious institutions be permitted to bless, or not, the uniting in marriage of whosomever they see fit.

I would propose that these marriages have no legal weight whatsoever.

One therefore could partake in the benefits of civil union, with or without the benefit of marriage, and vice versa.

And no, it wouldn't be more paperwork - one has to get a "marriage" certificate now, from whatever jurisdiction, and have it legally signed and witnessed. The same would be still be true for folks registering a union that also was being formalized by marriage. For those opting to forego civil recognition, it would mean *less* paperwork.

And yes, I would also propose that existing marriages be "grandfathered" in, so there was no requirement for the parties involved to re-register their union.

I do think that separating the two concepts, of "the blessings of holy matrimony" and of "contract law, next-of-kin, and insurance benefits", would help a lot to defuse the fundamentalists' criticism of same-sex unions. (After all, two people of the same sex already can be united in the eyes of God, or at least, their church; they just can't have that union legally recognized. The portion of the program to which objections are being raised on religious grounds is the portion that they already can accomplish!)

[ias.livejournal.com]

Government cannot get out of the business of marriage unless you are proposing to completely redefine marriage as a religious act and only a religious act. Quite frankly I would find redefining a term solely to shut up some homophobic, religious bigots offensive.

Marriage has always been about property and inheritance and thus requires definition in law and therefore the government has to be involved. The western church was a johnny-come-lately when it came to marriage, and if it hadn't been for the established church being handed the administration of marriage by a ruling class that believed in small government in the mid-18thC, we probably would have developed a system similar to France's with the only legal marriage being a civil one.

I do think that separating the two concepts, of "the blessings of holy matrimony" and of "contract law, next-of-kin, and insurance benefits", would help a lot to defuse the fundamentalists' criticism of same-sex unions.

We already have - it is called civil marriage. Personally I would prefer we changed to a system like France where the officiants in some religions (but not all by any means) were not able to act as registrars and everyone had to have a legally binding non-religious civil ceremony which they could then follow with whatever religious ceremony they wanted. Separate out the legal ceremony from the religious beliefs rather than tell those of us who are not religious we aren't allowed marriage but can only have civil unions.

[ias.livejournal.com]

The discrimination is not against straight couples who *choose* not to 'marry', but against gay and lesbian couples having to make do with the second-rate term 'partnership'

Absolutely agree. It is monstrous that the government is getting away with this fudge and discrimination all wrapped up in the guise of equality.

[syllopsium.livejournal.com]

Straight couples have the ability to get married in a registry office - therefore it's not descrimination. In both cases it's a contract of attachment to each other that cant be easily dissolved.

In any case gay couples still dont get the same rights - last time I looked there were a couple of things missing (with respect to pension rights), and it's not defined as marriage, when it should be.

[ramtops.livejournal.com]

Straight couples have the ability to get married in a registry office

yes, but why should they?

[lostcarpark.livejournal.com]

Because you must agree to enter into formal arrangement rather than just happening to live in the same house. Just my opinion.

[vampwillow]

because they love each other and want the rest of the world to know it ad that is how it is done (if you are straight, anyway)

[ias.livejournal.com]

For exactly the same reason as gay couples will have to go to a Registry Office and register with two witnesses and go through formal proceedings to dissolve the partnership - marriage in all but name (and some rights). If you want the legal rights, you should sign up to the responsibilities and declare it publicly, i.e. at a Registry Office ot other approved premises in front of a Registrar.

[syllopsium.livejournal.com]

What the others said. If you want the advantages of marriage/partnership you also have to take on the rights and responsibilites - chief of which is that this is a serious commitment made by two people that love each other, that takes considerable effort to dissolve.

Personally I think gay couples should also have the right to have a proper marriage (although I'll accept that marrying in religious institutions presents its own set of problems). For now the civil partnership is a good stopgap measure, but it still smacks of 'you're not as good as us and we're only doing this grudgingly'.

I suppose it's possible to put forward the argument that marriage, whether in a registry office or religious institution, has a whole set of societal conventions (clothes, service, reception, honeymoon, name changes) - but that's not the government's problem and can be ignored with sufficient willpower.

[ramtops.livejournal.com]

you're missing my point, I think. I want straight couples to be able to formalise their partnerships in the way that gay couples will be able to.

and I'd like gay couples to be able to have a proper marriage ceremony if that's what they want.

I want equality, d'you see?

[syllopsium.livejournal.com]

I want equality too. My point is that gay couples should be able to get married with the attached 'married' title (apart from in some religious institutions - sadly there's nothing the government can do about that).

I think the real question here is - what is the issue with an opposite sex marriage in a registry office without any of the religious trappings? Surely that is formalising a partnership?

[etriganuk.livejournal.com]

As I said in the first comment, the rights aren't automatic on gay couples - they need to do the equivalent of a registry office thing too.

So, in effect, everyone here is equal - do you the ceremony thing, no matter how small you make it, you get the benefits. If you don't you don't.

I'm not too sure if I'm worried about it being "civil partnerships" in name either. If you read the bill, it's as close to marriage in terms of rights and responsobilities as it can be without using the word. It's second best, but only a tiny bit so.

[timill]

What differences do you see between:
(a) existing civil marriages for straight couples
(b) the proposed gay partnerships
(c) your proposal for straight partnerships?

ISTM that (b) is designed to match (a) as closely as possible without scaring existing "sanctity of marriage" people, and that doesn't leave a lot of room for (c) to equal (b) without also equalling (a).

And if (c)=(a), why bother inventing it?

Opinions?

[lostcarpark.livejournal.com]

I think the problem is the confusion between the religious and the civil marriage. Both are valid, but they have very different purposes. When you get married in a church, a marriage certificate is filed with civil aurhorities to make it a legal marriage.

In some countries, the legal and religious procedures are kept strictly separate. First you have to register the civil marriage, then you go to the church for the religious service (if you want to). Personally I think this is a good idea. It makes it clear to people that they have legal responsibilities to each other as well as their religious committment.

I think it is also important to allow couples to have the choice to have the legal protection of marriage, or to remain unmarried if they choose to. Unfortunately many people remain unmarried because they don't believe in the religious aspect when they would benefit from the legal aspect.

Which brings us back to gay marriage. I think that whether you call it marriage or not, a gay couple should be entitled to the same protection a straight couple have. They must have the right to choose to enter into such a relationship. If you want to think up a new name to seperate civil and religious marriages so that gays don't "violate the sanctity of marriage", that would probably cut out a lot of the confusion for everyone.

[ias.livejournal.com]

They must have the right to choose to enter into such a relationship. If you want to think up a new name to seperate civil and religious marriages so that gays don't "violate the sanctity of marriage", that would probably cut out a lot of the confusion for everyone.

I don't see why civil marriage should be given a different name. Isn't civil marriage clear enough? I am an atheist and am in civil marriage with my atheist husband and I'm bloody well not going let anyone insist change that. Personally I would be far happier if any couple, whatever gender, were able to also have a civil marriage. It would also be far easier legally, if civil marriage were opened up to all couples - think of all those laws where spouse will have to be changed to 'spouse or civil partner'.

[lostcarpark.livejournal.com]

I largely agree, but I can see how people can get upset about it. While I would say to homophobic bible bashers who think gays are in league with Satan, "get on with living your own perfect life and let God deal with them."

But if a change of termonology made things easier for people to accept, I wouldn't be opposed to it, providing it isn't one word for hetrosexuals and another for homosexuals.

On the other hand if a huge number of laws (and application forms, etc) have to be changed to accomodate it, leading to people being denied rights because a particular law hasn't been updated yet, it makes much more sense to stick with the currently accepted language.

What it comes down to is the blurring of the civil and religious marriages. If these were made separate, I think people would understand the difference and become generally more tolerant.

In Ireland we have our own special brand of bigotry. Until recently if you applied for social welfare and when asked your religioin (why do they even need to know?), if you said anything other than one of the mainstream religions the official would tick the box for "lapsed Catholic".