I have two things to say here, the first is that this is a start. It is more that most countires do and if it is floored, then it should be seen as being a base from which to work rather than a flawed idea. “sexual apartheid” sounds like the cry of a spoilt child who wants everything and wants it now. Different but equal is still equal.Second, ‘Gay Marriage’ is a very evocotive phrase. If Britain tried to legalize ‘gay marriage’ all of the loonies and traditionalists would pop out of the woodwork and the would campaign against it saying that marriage was an institution or that it was a religious event etc.Had the government called it ‘gay marriage’ when they proposed it, the backlash might well have meant that you would have nothing, not even a civil partnership.
I must say that on a personal basis, I agree entirely with your comments.Ben
Here in the U.S.A., we have very little protections, two states offering some semblance of civil partnerships, though not as far reaching as the UK’s, and one state where full marriage is an option but that is a case of living in marital limbo since those marriages are not recognized in the rest of the country.Now that South Africa, of all countries, has given the nod to full marriage equality for same sex couples in a year, embarassingly so for the rest of the civilized world, I think Britain should push for it as a civil rights issue and get behind Lady Hale and support her. Civil partnerships do NOT offer every right of marriage. There is no democracy without full equality for all citizens without exception. Though the new laws are a step forward, they are not equality by any stretch of the imagination. Until that is changed, Britain along with other countries with similar laws cannot be construed as a true democracy. Hats off to Holland, Belgium, Canada, Spain and soon, South Africa, truly the world champions of freedom and democracy.Robert, USA.
I absolutely agree with Outrage!In fact, only the elimination of the discriminations (for ex: the exclusion for Marriage) is equality… “separate but equal” doctrine is only apartheid: different but equal is NOT equal.Does anyone agree with the Americans of decades ago proposing (and imposing) separate fountains, or schools, or buses, for black people as an instrument of equality? No! It would be ridiculous. So, why to say that separate unions for gays are equality??!! It’s not equality.Yes, to obtain Marriage is more complicated… but it is equality. Partnerships instead are apartheid. Sweet, but insulting, apartheid.
Just another example of Twatchell, Lock and Outgae showing the true extent of their uninformed ignorance.Civil Partnerships quite clearly are not apartheid, because they also allow heterosexual and non-sexual couples to form a Civil Partnerships, rather than entering marriage .. so in fact, it is one of those very rare and wonderful laws that manages to give both equity and equality – the very best kind of law there is.Civil Partnerships actually DO allow people in such non-sexual relationship to register their partnership and have it legally recognized. The only form of relationship in which the law assumes a right to sexual contact (and in which the absence such sexual contact is regarded as unreasonable and a ground for annulment or divorce) is ‘marriage’ .. the very institution that only moments earlier he wanted us to get upset at not having access to.Who don’t these untinking morons and provocatuers find something worthwhile to work for? .. like putting their weight behind the moves to have marriage downgraded to a meaningless religious institution, with no legal standing whatsoever? .. a change that would mean that only Civil Partnerships (hetero, homo or non-sexual) were recognized in law.