Getting Married?

[tombo487]

As some of you will know, there's a debate running at the moment in Britain about gay marriage. We have at the moment a system of civil partnerships, but now a proposal is coming forward from the government to establish marriage as a possibility between same-sex couples.

This is a civil marriage, not religious. Though the principal opposition, inevitably, has come from religious groups. Partly out of hate, but also because it threatens the role of the state church.

I feel uncertain about the issue. Talking to gay friends, I have yet to meet a couple who want to 'get married.' Many feel that it would be merely to ape the heterosexual norm. They seem to prefer the 'different' status of civil partnership.

Just wondered what people's experience and feelings were about this...

 

[XMan101]

It's really more to do with evening out the playing field, if one group can get married (in law) then so should all. I doubt all that many are particularly interested , or they weren't until the church got so vociferous on the matter.

There is also the argument that hetero couples may want civil partnership rather than marriage, but in reality is there any difference ?

Marriage is a state legal thing, it's nothing to do with the church and it's up to the church to decide who they wish to marry. For years, and it probably still happens, the Catholic church would never re-marry anyone divorced as they don't recognise divorce, that's up to them.

Some are making this out to be a threat to humanity! It's not, it's just a legal term for what effectively happens now in essence.

The majority of the population couldn't care less, it's not a religious country , probably the least religious country in Europe or the world, and a hard line stance by the conservative church leaders won't help their attendance figures

 

[Sinnerr]

I would say I'm for. Just why not? This feelings are same in straight couples like in gay/lesbian couples.

But probably "institute of marriage" is important for gays who comes from religious eniviroment. For them is important that they can call most loving person "husband". I as a person who has grown in absolutely nonreligious enviroment in probably most atheist country in the world I see it not so important if it's "civil partnership" or "marriage". Important are requisites not whats it called. Generally here in Czech Republic marriage has not taken very seriously neither by straight people. About half of newly born childern have parents who aren't married. For example my brother and his girlfriend have 3 childern are together cca 10 years and aren't married. Typical Czech attitude is "doent doesn't make love bigger, stronger or anything else". I would say thats true.

 

[Tjerk12]

In The Netherlands we have twelve years of experience with marriage of people of the same-sex. Legally there is in principle no difference with heterosexual marriage. Yet there are some problems. When two women marry and one of the two gets a child, it is obvious that she is the mother. Her partner has to adopt the child to be legally the (second) mother of the child. Another point is that some officials refuse to marry same-sex people (reasons of conscience). At the moment our parliament is discussing to dismiss officials who refuse to do so.
I was married (with a woman), so I know a bit what it means. In my country more than 30% divorce. That is the moment when you discover what marriage is also about; organizing your obligations to your partner. Most of the people (me too) forget to do that properly. Wedding cake and rings seem to be more important at your wedding day.
I would never marry again. I would organize my obligations to my partner properly and legally.
But... homosexuals and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals. That is why I am a strong supporter of marriage between same-sex people.
(And let us be so wise not to label it with the word "Gay". Marriage is a legal bond between two people, same-sex or different-sex).

 

[gb2000ie]

There is no such thing as separate but equal, so full equality is what is needed.

I get very angry when churches think they should rule countries. This is not the bloody middle ages, western europe has moved beyond theocracies, and it's about time the Churches accepted that and got on with what they are supposed to be doing!

The church of England is making a mockery of itself. The irony of a church set up in order to destroy the institution of marriage getting all high and mighty about 'protecting' it now seems to be lost on them entirely.

The church of England SHOULD feel uncomfortable, it is a state-run church, a medeival hang-over with no role in today's government.

B.

 

[bigsal]

The Anglican Church was established thanks to Henry VIII, who had the need to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn.

So I find it funny that the Anglican church talk about wedding. :?
Exists only at the whim of a king, and not for ..... "divine will!?!". :thinking:

 

[XMan101]

There is no such thing as separate but equal, so full equality is what is needed.

I get very angry when churches think they should rule countries. This is not the bloody middle ages, western europe has moved beyond theocracies, and it's about time the Churches accepted that and got on with what they are supposed to be doing!

The church of England is making a mockery of itself. The irony of a church set up in order to destroy the institution of marriage getting all high and mighty about 'protecting' it now seems to be lost on them entirely.

The church of England SHOULD feel uncomfortable, it is a state-run church, a medeival hang-over with no role in today's government.

B.

So true!!

Unfortunately the UK still appoints a certain number of Bishops and church leaders in the 2nd chamber, the House of Lords. I'm one who is in favour of having them removed but it's very difficult to and very slow to change such age old embedded institutions.
The 2nd chamber has no real power at the moment, other than a debating chamber to hold up a bill. They have their uses, but I don't see why religion should be involved in anything political.

 

[Sinnerr]

So true!!

Unfortunately the UK still appoints a certain number of Bishops and church leaders in the 2nd chamber, the House of Lords. I'm one who is in favour of having them removed but it's very difficult to and very slow to change such age old embedded institutions.
The 2nd chamber has no real power at the moment, other than a debating chamber to hold up a bill. They have their uses, but I don't see why religion should be involved in anything political.

Because it has been created for it. Church leaders, religious leaders are just politicans.

 

[topdog]

...And let us be so wise not to label it with the word "Gay". Marriage is a legal bond between two people, same-sex or different-sex.

Very good point. Marriage is a contract that is recognized in every country. It's all well and good to say you don't need a ceremony, rings, and a party to validate your relationship. But legal marriage protects children and many other other rights and privileges (as I wrote in detail here).

For example, what happens if you go to a foreign country? Your "civil partnership" doesn't mean much if you get in trouble visiting Japan, Spain, or the U.S.A. A marriage, on the other hand, is recognized across all borders.

 

[Sinnerr]

I would say that homphobic goverment can ignore marriage same easy as civil partnership. Few months ago I saw an article about u.s.-australian gay couple. Australian guy had to left US cos his visa expired Althought They was married in their state. And his husband had AIDS. In imigration cases is important federal law and in this is not same sex marriage yet.
Also It's naive that coutries where is de facto constitucional ban same-sex marriage for their citizens would take it seriously.

 

[Tjerk12]

I would say that homphobic goverment can ignore marriage same easy as civil partnership. Few months ago I saw an article about u.s.-australian gay couple. Australian guy had to left US cos his visa expired Althought They was married in their state. And his husband had AIDS. In imigration cases is important federal law and in this is not same sex marriage yet.
Also It's naive that coutries where is de facto constitucional ban same-sex marriage for their citizens would take it seriously.

Of course they will behave like that Sinner, but at least we should start. Ghandi was naive when he started to fight England, the first black people who refused to sit in the back of the bus in the USA were naive and Nelson Mandela was naive ---- in the opinion of many many people. But they achieved the change. In Dutch we say: Keulen en Aken zijn ook niet in 1 dag gebouwd (Cologne and Aachen are not built in a day). Things need time, but without a start you will achieve nothing.

 

[topdog]

I would say that homphobic goverment can ignore marriage same easy as civil partnership. Few months ago I saw an article about u.s.-australian gay couple. Australian guy had to left US cos his visa expired Althought They was married in their state. And his husband had AIDS. In imigration cases is important federal law and in this is not same sex marriage yet.
Also It's naive that coutries where is de facto constitucional ban same-sex marriage for their citizens would take it seriously.

I am sure there are places where this is true. (Uganda comes to mind.)

As for the US, the law says that no matter what states or other countries do, the Federal laws will only consider a heterosexual couple as married.

However that distinction is currently crumbling in the courts. The only step left is for the Supreme Court to rule on whether treating gay and straight couples differently ir prohibited by the Constitution's promise of equal treatment under the law. That will likely happen one year from today, if the Court takes the case in the fall, which we expect them to do.

 

[tonka]

This is an issue where time is so much on our side. The logic, the fairness, is certainly on our side. The wonderful thing is that young people really see us as real people, not perverts or demons. There will be setbacks ( the US Supreme Court has been just bizarre), But the old haters will fade away. In a decade, I think this will be the norm. Not everywhere, but the norm.

 

[Sinnerr]

Of course they will behave like that Sinner, but at least we should start. Ghandi was naive when he started to fight England, the first black people who refused to sit in the back of the bus in the USA were naive and Nelson Mandela was naive ---- in the opinion of many many people. But they achieved the change. In Dutch we say: Keulen en Aken zijn ook niet in 1 dag gebouwd (Cologne and Aachen are not built in a day). Things need time, but without a start you will achieve nothing.

Yes of course I know. I reacted to civil partnership - marriage comparing. All I wnated to say is: homophobes don't take seriously same sex marriage neither civil partnership, fair people take seriously both.

 

[tombo487]

Just to say thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread in answer to my question. Really grateful to you all fore helping me to deepen my understanding of this issue, especially in its international context. Thanks guys!