Well I can’t choose the same legal protection without getting married, so its discriminating against the unmarried.

That’s a non-sequitor.

You’re effectively saying you want to be married without being married.

Or alternatively, what you’re saying is that any two people who are in a relationship are, by virtue of being in that relationship, covered by a legal bond equivalent to marriagem whether they chose to be or not.

Well that’s ridiculous. You can’t legally bind someone into an arrangement against their will.

Would this legally binding cover extend to teenagers in their first relationship?

The legal cover is extended to you once you man up and make the commitment that in and of itself is the legal contract. That’s the whole point of it; you make a legally binding contract when you get married.

Depends what you mean as ‘marriage’. To me that means a religious ceremony and men around wearing frocks.

Mine, being a civil partnership didn’t have the religious ceremony

A civil ceremony will by law prevent any religious references from the proceedings. You even need to submit readings in advance to the registra so they can check this and give approval.

Religion doesn’t have to have anything to do with marraige if you don’t want it to.

Celebrated our 21st anniversary a few weeks ago (got married at 22) – we’ve been through some bloody tough times over the years and we bicker like mad, but I can’t imagine us ever being apart!

Religion doesn’t have to have anything to do with marraige if you don’t want it to.

Fair enough, I stand corrected! I think it is all that stuff going on in the US that has made me think of the religious bit.

So, in reality then, a CP (I use marriage anyway it’s too much of a mouthful to keep saying ‘civil partner’) is more-or-less identical to civil marriage?

Religion doesn’t have to have anything to do with marraige if you don’t want it to.

Yep. We got married in the same hotel as the reception. Purely civil service.
No God bothering involved. Even my dad’s recitation of the Selkirk Grace before the meal was modified to read “And sae let us aw be thankit”

So, in reality then, a CP (I use marriage anyway it’s too much of a mouthful to keep saying ‘civil partner’) is more-or-less identical to civil marriage?

Makes me feel slightly ashamed to be British that same-sex couples have to call it something else.

Broken down its a very starnge thing and shouldn’t mean anything at all.

On the face of it, its great and I look forward to the day I ruin the rest of my life.

So, in reality then, a CP (I use marriage anyway it’s too much of a mouthful to keep saying ‘civil partner’) is more-or-less identical to civil marriage

believe so, doesn’t matter if you get married in a registry office or a church, the bit of paper is the same isn’t it? We didn’t do religion, I thought my parents would be gutted but they couldn’t have given less of a toss, really surprised me actually.

Well I can’t choose the same legal protection without getting married, so its discriminating against the unmarried.

Isn’t that like saying people that don’t sign a contract should still be covered by that contract and the respective contract laws?

Perhaps what needs to happen is to stop worrying about the word. Let’s either call it ‘marriage’ either with or without religion, or ‘civil partnership’, ditto. Let those who believe in God(s) do their own thang but all legal stuff be identical.

I have often wondered about the straight people who want a civil partnership; I can’t be sure they are trying to shout about injustice or there is something they want regarding CP which is different. The only thing I can think of is the religious bit. Unless there’s a difference in law, of course.

Makes me feel slightly ashamed to be British that same-sex couples have to call it something else.

You shouldn’t be; the word marriage is a complicated word and it is ultimately tied up with the church.

If you wanted to extend ‘marriage’ as legal entity to same sex couples, you would have, by law, to require the church to perform those marriages. The problem is that the state cannot, nor IMO, should not, dictate religious doctrine to the church, and I say this as an agnostic who is not religious.

Civil Partnerships and Marriage are the same in every way apart from name; they offer the same legal protection to both couples and the same recognition in the eyes of the law. Which is how it should be.

The church should be allowed to decide it’s own beliefs and people ought to respect that (and BTW should refrain from using derrogotary language towards people of faith that they wouldn’t use to people of different races, colours or sexual persuasions).

Kim Kardashian obviously did believe, but has since re-evaluated things:(

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/15524309

Well I can’t choose the same legal protection without getting married, so its discriminating against the unmarried.

Isn’t that like saying people that don’t sign a contract should still be covered by that contract and the respective contract laws?

My thoughts exactly.

Don’t understand why so many people are happy to have children together but won’t get hitched. Having kids is a massively bigger commitment and it just makes me think that they haven’t really thought it through.

The problem is that the state cannot, nor IMO, should not, dictate religious doctrine to the church.

Well in that case the church should not be allowed to perform a legal marriage, there should be no get out clause for equality in law, or it isn’t equality.

The church should be allowed to decide it’s own beliefs and people ought to respect that (and BTW should refrain from using derrogotary language towards people of faith that they wouldn’t use to people of different races, colours or sexual persuasions).

That’s a bit one-sided, isn’t it? For example the Quakers are more than happy to allow same-sex people religious ceremonies in their churches but that is banned by law.

I’d say do what Cameron is suggesting: legalise it for anyone but don’t force ceremonies on any religion that doesn’t want to do it.

And while we’re at it, lets stop derogatory language against gay people from churches 😀

the word marriage is a complicated word and it is ultimately tied up with the church.

Nonsense. If I can have a “marriage” and be “married” without involving the church or God in any way, then why can’t a homosexual couple do the same? It is a meaningless distinction that should be dropped.

Isn’t that like saying people that don’t sign a contract should still be covered by that contract and the respective contract laws?

You know many people are covered by “applied” contracts in employment, and probably other areas as well, when certain conditions, responsibilities or entitlements have been granted over a period of time, then they are deemed to be part of the contact of employment without the need for an actual legal document.

I’d imagine that those people see marriage as an irrelevance chapaking. TBF, that was pretty much my own view. I do like being married though, and the wedding and honeymoon were great fun.

FWIW, it’s worth bearing in mind that the whole “ceremonial” bit in a church has no legal bearing on whether or not someone is married.

I’m recently married too. Despite being initially cynical had the opinion that it was mainly for her.
In fact, I like it. I feel far more secure and trusting than I did before. Dunno why really as nothing has actually changed apart from my attitude. It’s not something I’d rush into which seems an obvious thing to say, but many do.
Very glad I did it now. 😀

they are deemed to be part of the contact of employment without the need for an actual legal document.

Ah so, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage ?

Long term partners still have some legal status, especially in Scotland, but if you want more protection then just sign the contract. Why is that unfair?

Well in that case the church should not be allowed to perform a legal marriage

Interestingly the church can’t do this; the vows you make are not legally binding. It’s the register you sign afterwards that makes it legally binding.

there should be no get out clause for equality in law, or it isn’t equality.

Well philosophically speaking your right, you can never have true equality. Someone will always be prejudiced against. Society has to accept which group of peoples’ liberties it’s more comfortable compromising.

If we pass a law that legislates against somone’s religious belief then that person doesn’t feel that there is equality in the law, even though society as a whole may well feel it’s more ‘equal’.

Nonsense. If I can have a “marriage” and be “married” without involving the church or God in any way, then why can’t a homosexual couple do the same?

I think, but I might be wrong about this, it is because marriage, whether it is civil or otherwise, is ultimately the same thing and so passing a law which allows sames sex ‘marriage’, would then mean the Church is required to offer sames sex marriage.

But most of this is ultimately just word play and semantics. Legally speaking it is very problematic but in the real world, it’s all the same thing.

I do think though that you have to be careful not to pursue an agenda for the wrong reasons. Same sex couples can have marriage in everything but name; aethists and agnostics can have a civil ceremony marriage and the religious can have their religious ceremony. Picking a fight over the terms is more often than not motivated by prejudice on either side.

Yes I do

I met my now wife when we were at university… after two days I felt I wanted to spend my life with her..(a stupid idea I know but that was the way it was)

I proposed after three weeks… she said ” I thought you would never ask”…. I had been fighting the urge for two+ weeks.

We got married 3 years later aged 22 & 23. It is many years later she is 49.. I am 50. I love her with all my soul … I have never regretted a moment with her and I wish to stay married to this beautiful soul for the rest of my days.

I believe in marriage.

I do think though that you have to be careful not to pursue an agenda for the wrong reasons. Same sex couples can have marriage in everything but name; aethists and agnostics can have a civil ceremony marriage and the religious can have their religious ceremony. Picking a fight over the terms is more often than not motivated by prejudice on either side.

Fair enough. Let’s just change its name then. I vote for ‘Squidgified’. Everyone can get squiggled if they want it. Those that believe in god(s) can get religiously squidgified. Those that don’t can have a civil squidgification.

Making a distinction between people means there is a difference. Making a difference will get people het-up. Either on one side you have the ‘marriage has *always* meant X’ (which usually isn’t true) and the other side says ‘Why am I being treated differently?’

Making a distinction between people means there is a difference.

But people are different. We should strive to all be treated equally but we are all nevertheless different.
The issue of equality is right up there with the other great paradoxes of life. It’s like claiming that we live in a ‘free society’; well actually we don’t. People are not truly free, society has laws that we expect people to abide by.
Equality is an ideal that we should pursue, like freedom in an open society is; neither are absolutes but that doesn’t lessen their importance.
I understand your suggestion and I like the sentiment that is driving it, but I’m not sure I’m ready to accept that we’re all the same because it’s socially expedient and it avoids disagreement. We’re supposed to disagree. But we’re also supposed to respect each other.

Picking a fight over the terms is more often than not motivated by prejudice on either side.

Be honest, most of the prejudice is on one side.

Have you ever thought of going into politics geetee? I think you might be good at it.

Be honest, most of the prejudice is on one side.

Traditionally it has been but I think the tide is turning. Genuinely I’m borderline aethist, certainly what you would traditionally call agnostic. But even I can see that there is a thinly veiled shadow of ‘theophobia’ on STW.

As for politics, yes, I have considered it. But I would have to stand on an ‘issues agenda’ not a party political one and independents don’t tend to get elected.

Just in case no-one else mentions it, nice posts wrecker and Eyepic 🙂 and in the spirit of the original question

Interestingly the church can’t do this; the vows you make are not legally binding. It’s the register you sign afterwards that makes it legally binding.

Well you sign the register in church, and the church is the legal representative of the state in that act.

Well philosophically speaking your right, you can never have true equality. Someone will always be prejudiced against. Society has to accept which group of peoples’ liberties it’s more comfortable compromising.

If we pass a law that legislates against somone’s religious belief then that person doesn’t feel that there is equality in the law, even though society as a whole may well feel it’s more ‘equal’.

Well if we as a society pass a law granting equality to a group, then we have already decided that they deserve that right, allowing another section of society to not abide by that law is state sanctioned discrimination.
It shows that there is still much inbuilt homophobia in society that so many people consider it acceptable that the church should be exempt from the law.

geetee1972 – Member
But even I can see that there is a thinly veiled shadow of ‘theophobia’ on STW.

I’m not sure it’s any more than the same level of scepticism being shown towards Power Balance bands or Homeopathic medicine.

But people are different. We should strive to all be treated equally but we are all nevertheless different.
The issue of equality is right up there with the other great paradoxes of life. It’s like claiming that we live in a ‘free society’; well actually we don’t. People are not truly free, society has laws that we expect people to abide by.

That doesn’t mean you have to support it. I believe everyone should be treated equally. Saying “Yes, but…” means either (a) you don’t really care or (b) you tacitly support the status-quo.

I understand your suggestion and I like the sentiment that is driving it, but I’m not sure I’m ready to accept that we’re all the same because it’s socially expedient and it avoids disagreement. We’re supposed to disagree. But we’re also supposed to respect each other.

I’m ready to accept that we’re all the same because it is right, and it is true.

I respect anyone’s belief to believe *anything* they want. As long as it only affects them. I can disagree with, say, Stoner on economics but respect his view nevertheless. Disagreeing and arguing with someone is not the same as proscribing their behaviour based upon your own views/faiths.

The moment it affects me I will consider what they have said and either agree, ignore or shout ‘rubbish!’.

Who do you think isn’t the same, by the way? And why? 🙄

Yup been married for 5 years in December, together for 8 years before that. All works fine for us 8)

Even got one of those mini humans on the way in April too

Not read the thread but no – I don’t believe in marriage.

30 yrs me and SWMBO have been together – we don’t need the blessing of a godbotherer or a bit of paper to tell us we can.

Its me and her and the rest of our lives. we are commited to each other

Well I can’t choose the same legal protection without getting married, so its discriminating against the unmarried.

That’s completely barking. All marriage does is give you legal protection. If you want it pay £40, take 20 minutes out of your day and get it. Cheaper and little more hassle than taxing your car.

I’m not sure it’s any more than the same level of scepticism being shown towards Power Balance bands or Homeopathic medicine

It would be nice if that were true but I’m not convinced that it is. The mere mention of faith is enough to hijack almost any thread (this being another example).

EDIT:

we don’t need the blessing of a godbotherer

See, there we go again. TJ could just have said ‘a God’ or Church in this case but that would have not caused offence

That doesn’t mean you have to support it. I believe everyone should be treated equally. Saying “Yes, but…” means either (a) you don’t really care or (b) you tacitly support the status-quo.

Not sure what you meant here. I get the idea that apathy towards inequality is as bad as the prejudice that drives the problem in the first place, but that’s not what I’m saying.

I’m saying that ultimately equality is a paradox because what we each understand to be ‘equality’ will be slightly different. There is less debate around what it means to live in a ‘free and democratic society’ because that concept has been established for far longer than the notions of equality we are dealing with now. But even the notion of ‘free and democratic’ is still debated and contested, for example when the last government wanted to allow detention without charge to be extended to 90 days.

Who do you think isn’t the same, by the way? And why?

Before I answer that I should qualify that I am differentiating between being the same and being equal. I believe we are all equal but not all the same.

Eyepic – That has made me smile.

geetee1972 – I’d vote for you 🙂

Not sure what you meant here. I get the idea that apathy towards inequality is as bad as the prejudice that drives the problem in the first place, but that’s not what I’m saying.

Perhaps it’s crossed wires or something. Your previous entries seemed to be saying “Yes, in an ideal world, but since it isn’t ideal let’s leave it as it is.” If not, I’ve got the wrong end of the stick and thus apologise.

Before I answer that I should qualify that I am differentiating between being the same and being equal. I believe we are all equal but not all the same.

On that we can agree. For example I am often mistaken for Brad Pitt’s more handsome younger brother, and others aren’t 😀 I think the main point we may disagree is in the semantics. I see no reason why two people who love each other can’t get married/partnered/squidgified in exactly the same way as any other two. If those people are followers of a religion which supports them then they may opt to have some form of religious ceremony. Bully for them and I’d support them to the hilt. If they are not religious then they won’t. Bully for them and I’d support them to the hilt. And if they want a religious ceremony but their religion hates them then perhaps they should have a long hard think about their church/mosque/sangha/temple/etc.

Wholeheartily believe in “the unity of two”

As for a piece of paper to “prove” such to authority or partner/parents…

Nahhhhhhhhh

Marriage is great…

We should all do it several times…

22 years in.