(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

[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?