Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay law group ensures New Jersey union fairness

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Once again, Pink News gets it wrong. The nJ court did not necessarily back gay marriage but said that gay couples should enjoy the rights and privileges of marriage as do heterosexuals either under civil marriage or civil unions. There is a difference you know. You can bet that civil unions or civil partnerships will be the best it can offer, definitely NOT marriage in either case, separate and unequal, in other words, sexual apartheid. Its not equality and its not democracy either. Robert, New York City, USA

  2. I do not agree that it is not demcratic. Marraige in ANY society world wide is a union of the opposite sex. The parties are called husband and wife. The husband is a man and wife is a woman. Two husbands cannot make a marraige, and it is hard to see how centuries of culture and tradition can be wiped out with the stroke of a pen! there have always been homosexuals throughout history, but even in Rome and Greece, marraige has always had the same meaning. The Court was right. Society may yet evolve to change the meaning of marraige, but until then, Gays should actually form their own tradition and call it any name they want, so far as they have all the legal rights of marraige. They should stop trying to change facts on its head! It is not apartheid, it is reality, 10% of the population cannot force others to change a tradition, that is NOT democracy. Marraige is not a human right like eating/drinking and a roof over one’s head, without which, a person could not survive. Marraige is an old fashioned institution that was formed by people, and can only be change by consensus..

  3. Nike, you can rant all you want about the justification to discriminate against gay people by not allowing them to marry, but marriage is also a civil right. In a truly democratic society, ALL citizens are supposed to be equal under the law, they are NOT, not in the UK or USA. There are only five countries who can lay claim to being called true democracies and enlightened ones at that. They are Holland (the first), Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa. Forms of marriage existed long before the judeo/christian tradition and it was NOT confined to opposite sex couples. How would you like it if you were forbidden marriage because you’re heterosexual, jewish or anything else for that matter. Try living in the shoes of a gay man or woman and see what discrimination means. You either have full equality for your people or you don’t and if you don’t, then you’re not a democracy. Just because you have civil partnerships in the UK doesn’t make gay people equal whatsoever, its a cop-out and cowardly all because the government didn’t want to upset the church. Well, shit on that…the church(es) upset, offend and oppress millions of gay people every day, for centuries, the most undemocratic, discriminatory organizations of all. Your diatribe on the justification for opposite sex marriage is just another form of homopobia. Marriage is also not solely for procreation either, the bottom line is, people marry because they love one another, nothing more. Next you’ll be siding with the churches who advocate that every marriage must produce children. Or that childless married couples’ marriages cannot be validated. Or maybe you’re just a self-loathing, repressed gay, if not, what are you doing cruising a gay website? Go back to the cave from whence you came.Robert, NYC, USA

  4. Robert,Can you cite one example of a same sex marraige in history?

  5. Robert, ex-pat Brit 17 Feb 2008, 4:16pm

    Civil Unions are identical to Civil Partnerships in the UK, same rights as marriage but NOT marriages nor can they be deemed as such unless legislation states that they are. Until that happens, they remain what they are, non-interchangeable unions or partnerships and not available to heterosexuals who choose not to marry. They are indeed NOT equal.

  6. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be provided for all the people. Not just some of the people. Civil Unions are a step forward in our journey for equality but only provide about 1/3of the benefits of marriage. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com

  7. we’ve been through this discussion before – there will never be agreement between those who see CP as equal to marriage, and those who don’t – it doesn’t go anywhere.

  8. If anyone believes that civil unions/partnerships are equal to marriage then ask any straight person if they would trade their marriage for a civil partnership.If it were equal then news reports wouldn’t continually refer to gay civilly partnered couples as “married” in “not really” quotes.I think it is a great and important step but I don’t think it should be considered the end goal.I long for the day that the US gives its gay citizens the rights and recognition that our Motherland gives hers. I also look forward to the day that the UK takes the next step and removes the final barrier to true equality. You Brits are leading the way on this one and we Yanks across the pond are taking notice. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters.

  9. Paul Brownsey 19 Feb 2008, 1:33pm

    In response to Zeke, I’d like to say that I know straight couples who wish they had civil partnership, not marriage, as an option. I think this is because they think of marriage as carrying all sorts of religious connotations. When I tell them that civil marriage is just that, *civil* marriage, without *any* religious import, and that you can get a civil marriage without any ceremony, any one-flesh theology, any rigmarole of reception and honeymoon and bridesmaids….er, well, the point doesn’t get through.

  10. Robert, ex-pat Brit 19 Feb 2008, 1:41pm

    Zeke, actually we have a supreme court judge, Lady Hale, who stated that if gay people want the responsibilities of marriage, then they should be allowed to marry? She never once referred to civil partnerships. All it would take is the merging of the civil partnership act into the marriage causes act of 1973 stating that civil partnerships are legal civil marriages. That’s all it would take but for some reason, British gays don’t seem to want marriage because of the straight, patriarchal connotation Now, if these partnerships were available or interchangeable for both straights and gays, then that would be equality, true equality. The sad thing is they’re not, but should be.I for one find it rather awkward to say to my partner, will you civil partner me instead of “will you marry me.” Ridiculous, absurd to say the least. How a two tier system of relationships with similar rights and privileges can be construed as equal is mind boggling and to some extent, I think there is a lot of denial going on. I wonder if by a stroke of luck civil partnerships were abandoned for true marriage as is the case currently pending in the state of New Jersey, would those currently in a partnership reject their chance of marriage? They all scream that they don’t want marriage because of the straight connection and don’t want to be like them, but it does make you wonder. You, me and and most gay people across the globe demand the real thing, not the substitute, except for my fellow Brits.

  11. Sister Mary Clarence 19 Feb 2008, 2:43pm

    Paul – don’t even waste you’re breathe trying to enter into any sort of reasoned debate about this. You’re banging your head against a brick wall discussing it with people who have no understanding about civil partnerships, marriages and the lack of differences between, in this country (however much they scream and shout that they do).Civil partnerships are inferior to marriage in the US and so they must be inferior for the rest of the world. It does not enter their heads that we may have actually come up with something better than they have over there, and that we might be evening thinking about it makes us BAD homosexuals.All sorts of nonsense has come up about differences we never even imagined, but in all the instances I can remember, when checked out none of them were found to be true.The results of the consultation before civil partnerships have been cited showing support for a different name to marriage to no avail. Often its our blinkered US friends shouting loudest against religion, but as soon as a few British gays say they what a formal partnership that isn’t marriage because they want to distance themselves from the religious overtones of marriage itself – we’re all going to hell for betraying our own.I think we just have to accept that irony isn’t the only thing that Americans don’t understand.

  12. Robert, ex-pat Brit 19 Feb 2008, 4:02pm

    Paul, if straights, probably the minority of them, want civil partnerships, why aren’t they demanding their right to them and why is the LGBT community not fighting for them, if these straight feel so strongly about having them? According to UK marriage statistics, 65% of marriages are civil ceremonies, not religious.There is NO religious connotation in civil marriage either, not one reference to religion or a deity for that matter if you’ve ever attended a registry office wedding. Marriage unlike we know it today, existed long before the judeo-christian era. Marriage and civil partnerships should be interchangeable as a reflection of a modern 21st century Britain. In the U.S. state of California, NY and a few others, both straights and gays can enter into a domestic partnership with similar rights to marriage. There is absolutely NO reason why straight couples in the UK shouldn’t form a civil partnership if they choose not to marry. About time the LGBT community got off its lazy arse and started advocating for that if they claim they believe in full equality. Or maybe the majority of straights don’t want them because they mimic gay partnerships, the same argument that anti marriage gays use to justify their opposition to same-sex marriage. Who gives a damn about bridesmaids, receptions, honeymoons, that’s not about marriage itself, those are the externals that aren’t mandatory. I find it ironic that a lot of gays who are anti marriage and enter into a partnership often use the familiar terminology associated with real marriage, i.e. honeymoon, wedding, vows, pop the question, divorce, etc. after they’ve had their partnership registration. They don’t exchange vows, so what the heck is all that about? If that’s not about denial, I don’t know what is.

  13. William - Dublin 19 Feb 2008, 4:53pm

    “About time the LGBT community got off its lazy arse and started advocating for that if they claim they believe in full equality”Robert, I find offence with your inferences to those among us who do not want marriage to be “lazy” or not seeking equality. That is an ignorant and dismissive view at best. I, like so many people I know, hold proud to the idea that mimicking a straight couple is not my idea of “equality”. I can only assume that its in the US you have this issue, as its never been raised with any of my friends in the UK.I don’t need ridiculous vows or a tacky honeymoon to feel equal (thankfully I can afford to travel where I want when I want!) Quite frankly, I would find such things boring, dull and conformist. They might be for you, but you need to ask yourself, what is it you are really looking for? To become “normal”? And that’s fine if that’s right for you, but be honest about it. I for one am proud to be different, and proud to shun the trappings of a straight married lifestyle just so straight people can feel more comfortable around me. Nor do I need it to feel “equal”. I am equal. I’m just sorry you don’t see that too, and I’m sorry you, and others who think we’re “lazy” queers, don’t see that some people in the EU prefer partnerships and are entitled to do so without feeling somehow guilty for it.

  14. Robert, ex-pat Brit 19 Feb 2008, 5:10pm

    William, I’m sorry you are offended. Everybody, straights and gays should have access to whatever partnership, union, marriage whatever you want, not limit it to ONE option only and why should they be? They should be interchangeable and available to all, THAT would be full equality. Let me remind you, the idea of something other than marriage is not innovative as some here claim, Denmark was the first country ever to conceive of alternatives to marriage almost 20 years ago for same-sex couples, not the UK.Sitting back and believing you’ve achieved your equality because you can form a partnership is delusional.

  15. Paul Brownsey 19 Feb 2008, 5:12pm

    William of Dublin says he *feels* equal.So what? That doesn’t mean he *is* equal. I can *feel* I’m Napoleon, but actually I’m not.The sort of equality that is in question here is not a matter of how you feel. What is being talked about is *legal* equality, and it is patently obvious that gays are *not* being treated equally by the law. You may not care about that and you may even prefer it, but your preferences don’t alter the fact that gays are not being treated equaslly under the law. It is one question, whether we are as a mattrer of fact being treated equally under the law; it is another question whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, something to get worked up about or something not worth bothering about.

  16. William - Dublin 19 Feb 2008, 5:34pm

    Perhaps a good set of reading glasses is needed for you Paul. A direct quote from my comment: “Nor do I need it to feel “equal”. I am equal.” Hence, I never said I *feel* equal. I said I am equal.That aside, Paul, perhaps you can enlighten me. Lets take the UK. In what way do you feel “unequal” in the UK under the partnership laws there? I’m no expert in British Law, being from Ireland and all that, so point out the differences and lets see how different the partnership and marriage is and discuss rationally without your delusions about being Napoleon thrown into the mix.And Robert, being in a partnership/marriage is not the pinnacle of equality. There is so much more to equality than that. Do you need to have a partner to be equal to straight people? No, I don’t think so. So being able to marry is not the definition of equality. Its a choice of terminology when the legalities are the same. And my choice is not to have marriage. I do agree that the choice should be there for people like you, but condemning others because they don’t want marriage is nonsense. This is the least of our worries, and I think gays spend too much time bone picking on the legalities of partnership vs marriage when so many other areas in society needs to change before we can be consider the fight over. Allowing us to marry is not the solution to getting equality, and thinking that it is, I believe THAT is naive.

  17. Robert, ex-pat Brit 19 Feb 2008, 7:21pm

    William, you said….”I, like so many people I know, hold proud to the idea that mimicking a straight couple is not my idea of “equality”. I can only assume that its in the US you have this issue, as its never been raised with any of my friends in the UK.” Actually, William, civil partnerships ARE mimicking marriage with the rights they convey. If people couldn’t marry, there would be no civil partnerships. So I think its a bit hypocritical to say you don’t want to be like straights, you are if you want the rights they enjoy which come through marriage and now these second class partnerships. What if your country offered you marriage instead, you mean to say you’d reject the chance along with all your gay Irish friends? To be consistent, you wouldn’t. No, dead wrong, its not only in the U.S. we are demanding marriage equality its in virtually every western country where this is happening. They want marriage, not partnerships. In any event, you should have a choice of either, not just one, for everyone if you truly believe in equality. Even France who had PACS long before the UK ever conceived of some degree of equality for gays, Segeline Royale who was running for the presidency against Sarkozy pledged that she would open marriage to gay citizens and abandon PACS altogether. Hardly any gay frenchmen or women objected to that or chose to be apart, it is they who voted for her not for Sarkozy who doesn’t want gays to have the same rights as the rest of society. Five countries now offer marriage, Sweden is soon to follow, so don’t tell me only the U.S. is where this movememnt is happening. Its growing, slowly but surely and more countries will follow suit.

  18. Robert, ex-pat Brit 19 Feb 2008, 7:34pm

    William you have some nerve to call me naive. What I object to are people like you and others who object to gays having the right to marry IF THEY SO CHOOSE. THAT is far more to do with equality than being offered only one alternative that mimicks marriage anyway. I don’t give a damn if you prefer partnerships to marriage, that’s your choice but don’t ridicule or jeer at those of us, the majority worldwide, who are fighting for the right to marry. If anything, you and others should be supportive even if you choose a different way to get some rights. I know exactly what equality is all about having lived in a country where the civil rights movement began decades ago. So please, don’t lecture me or condescend by saying that I am naive. I’ve been around probably a lot longer than you at my current age of 58 and hold two degrees from University College, London and consider myself somewhat informed on most things. Further, I am quite aware that having the right to marry doesn’t mean the battle for equality is over unlike some who think civil partnerships are. Those are the lazy arses I was referring to in an earlier posting.

  19. William - Dublin 19 Feb 2008, 9:33pm

    Robert, you can’t react badly to being called naive when you feel its okay to be accuse people of being delusional because they don’t accept your version of what equality is. And age is not proportional to wisdom, so I will not accept that “longer around than you” fools argument that one falls back on when there is nothing else to say. While I’m “only” 35, I too hold two degrees, so lets not let that be the debating issue, on top of many other qualifications in Science and Engineering. Maybe it IS generational issue, but I just cannot see one valid reason to accept your version of what equality is, and its you who is the one who is too quick off the mark to “jeer” others who don’t see your point of view on this with you “lazy” and “delusional” comments. Perhaps a measure of your own medicine here about accepting other points of view. Maybe you need to return to the EU, the US has made you bitter.I have no issue with you wanting marriage, or anyone else that does. Choice is always preferable to none. But I’m sick to my teeth of having to defend MY choices in favour of partnerships against a barrage of feverish claptrap about how stupid my decision is and how inferior I am as a gay because of it.Sister Mary Clarence is right. You’re not willing to listen to argument on this without a smug air of superiority. I can only pray you do better with straight people you need to bring in this marriage you so desperately need. I’ll say no more on the subject, I’m not used to wasting my breath, and apologies if my opinion offended you in anyway.

  20. Sister Mary Clarence 19 Feb 2008, 11:06pm

    William, in any discussion it is important to listen to opposing points of view and having read the comments written here and looked again at the issue of civil partnerships, I am inclined to agree that our friends on the other side of the Atlantic may actually have a point.There is an important factor that I haven’t until now given due weight to, that creates an imbalance between civil partnerships and marriage.Civil partnerships came about wholly in response to the wishes of the gay community, whereas marriage in the form we know it today was imposed on the straight community by the church.Clearly this gives us one up on our straight counterparts. As we have got one up on them, perhaps those across the water that have got a completely different system that I would assume has not come about by the same means as our own, might shut up whining about something they patently know very little about, lest the straight masses start kicking off that we have one up on them.Like you I am sick to the back teeth of having this same discussion. Each of the supposed inequalities that have been cited have turned out to be no such thing. Statistics and responses from the consultation process that lead to civil partnerships have been citing verifying our community’s support for the term civil partnership and subsequently been rubbished by those who oppose it. Countless people have voiced their support of the system that we in effect chose. Yet still others, who largely are unaffected by the decisions made in this country, berate us.Civil partnerships offer us equal rights to marriage in this country and that is the beginning and the end of it. If a few people in the States want to look down on me for being in favour of it, the so be it. Increasingly I find myself looking down on them. The way things are going over there its only a matter of time before McDonalds start serving moonshine instead of root beer and the kids start finding banjos in their Happy Meals.

  21. Bill Perdue 20 Feb 2008, 4:49am

    Robert, homosexual Conservatives oppose the GLBT movement and its agenda. They dishonestly pretend that only a few wretched moonshine guzzling Americans and ex-pats disagree with them on samesex equality. The opposite is true – conservatives are in fact a marginal, strident minority whose opposition to marriage equality is part of their general antagonism to GLBT protective laws such as the hate speech act. They oppose our agenda because it undermines their efforts to be ‘accepted’ by rightwing extremists and christians who smile and hand out ‘atta boy’ awards while they’re around. As soon as these ‘homosexual Conservatives’ leave the room they become ‘poofters’ or ‘faggots’, Their delusions about being ‘tolerated’ by rightwing Conservatives is why they leap to the defense of bigoted cops, firemen and Conservative politicians. They issue apologias for the homophobic and islamophobic efforts of Home Office to deport gay and lesbians Iranian refugees to certain torture and death. They dishonestly claim that the Conservatives have ‘evolved’ since the days when the gaybashing, union busting Thatcher-Major Section 28 thugs sent Conservative electoral prospects into a nosedive. If anything the Conservatives have ‘devolved’; their new look is just a smattering of whitewash that doesn’t begin to cover the sewage. Homosexual conservatives, mired in a swamp of self hatred and internalized homophobia, ape the theocratic christians when they claim that laws for marriage equality or protective laws are ‘special rights’ which diminish the rights of others. These laws only diminish the rights of bigots. Equality is good for us and everyone else. What these whining Conservatives don’t understand, and what everyone else sees clearly, is that the enhancement of our rights benefits everyone EXCEPT bigots.

  22. Paul Brownsey 20 Feb 2008, 11:52am

    William of Dublin says, “…Hence, I never said I *feel* equal. I said I am equal.”I do not think that is true to what he wrote. He said (inter alia): “I don’t need ridiculous vows or a tacky honeymoon to feel equal (thankfully I can afford to travel where I want when I want!).” I cannot see that it is an unreasonable reading of that remark to conclude that (a) he is, at least to an extent, talking about *feeling* equal, and (b) that he *does* “feel equal”, in part on account of his wealth.He asks me in what way I “feel” unequal under UK law. My feelings are neither here nor there. What I feel is a matter of autobiography and is no evidence as to what the law is. Whether or not I am equal in UK law is a matter of legal fact, not a matter of what feelings happen to arise in me. So far as I am aware, there are not many legal differences between civil partnerships and civil marriage. Most of them I have encountered seem to me to be pretty minor (though of course views may differ so far as concerns what is minor). I gather, for instance, that the concept of consummation has no place in the UK civil partnership legislation. I can’t say that that worries me. (Perhaps the legislators just didn’t want to Go There and didn’t want to revisit President Clinton on what Having Sex is.) My impression is that so far as concerns taxation and next-of-kin status in its various ramifications, there is no difference. (I happen to know someone senior in the UK Inland Revenue who sat on committees that adjusted the tax laws to civil partnerships and she tells me that they proceeded on the assumption that they were simply extending the tax laws on marriage to civil partnerships.)From what I have read, however, I gather that the mere fact that it is not *called* “marriage” has legal consequences that may in some cases be severe. I gather that because UK civil partnership is not *called* “marriage”, then various international understandings to do with the mutual recognition of marriages do not apply, and that UK civil partners may find themselves severely disadvantaged in respect of international travel, immigration, marriage benefits, etc, abroad.I think I have also read of a few cases where rules and practices that discriminate against gays (e.g. in respect of work pensions) may still be legal on account of their being couched using the m-word; but I am not a lawyer and cannot vouch for details.Over and above all that, the fact that it is not *called* “marriage” is apt to generate the thought that it is second-best, not quite ‘the real thing’. I do not think one should discount the symbolic function of law; indeed, to listen to some politicans, you’d think that law-making is primarily about ‘putting out messages’. In that case, the message put out here is that gay relationships are not quite the full shilling, somehow lack the depth, commitment, love, connoted by the word “marriage”.My impression is that the decision not to use the m-word was made largely in order to make it easier to get the legislation through. I have long suspected that the fact that civil partnership laws closely parallel marriage laws was in part meant to pave the way for a subsequent merging of the two under the heading of “marriage” once the notion of civil partnerships had sunk in: it would not, I suspect, need a lot of legal tidying up to introduce a law that effected that. It also seems to me that this manoeuvre of avoiding the m-word didn’t fool many people. The Scottish Roman Catholic Church, for instance, has denounced civil partnerships as marriage under another name. Nothing in what I have said amounts to denying that some gay people do not like the word “marriage” and what it connotes (just as I know straight couples who don’t and have said to me that they wish *they* could have civil partnership). But many of the things they dislike about marriage simply are simply not true of *civil* marriage: civil marriage legislation contains nothing whatever about one-flesh and whom-God-hath-joined and remedy-for-sin.”Yes, but it’s what people *think* that matters – indeed, what they *feel* – and if they associate civil marriage with religion and all that, their feelings should be respected.”Oh? Why? Aren’t they just being *silly*?So far as concerns my feelings, I am very glad there is civil partnership law in the UK (as distinct from what was there before) but am narked it’s not called “marriage”.

  23. Robert, ex-pat Brit 20 Feb 2008, 2:03pm

    Paul, I totally concur with you. You also said…”Nothing in what I have said amounts to denying that some gay people do not like the word “marriage” and what it connotes (just as I know straight couples who don’t and have said to me that they wish *they* could have civil partnership). But many of the things they dislike about marriage simply are simply not true of *civil* marriage: civil marriage legislation contains nothing whatever about one-flesh and whom-God-hath-joined and remedy-for-sin.”It is about time that civil partnerships were made available to straight couples who would rather not marry because of the patriarchal, religious connotations too. Unlike the U.K. in several states in the U.S. where civil unions are available, both gay and straight couples are permitted to enter into these unions, a fairer more equal system. Similarly, California is passing legislation that allows domestic partnerships wherein both are same sex (but also available to straight couples) the right to file joint tax returns and that they are permitted to enter such returns under the “marriage” heading. I for one don’t care if people prefer civil partnerships, that is their prerogative and choice and all that is available to them, but what I do object to are those who don’t respect the rest of us who want an option to marry and none of them support that, that’s what irks me. I don’t believe in sexual apartheid comparable to miscegenation laws and until our government recognises partnerships as marriages then that’s what they will remain. I choose not to segregate myself just because I love and sleep with another of my own gender, there are already an oppressive class structure in our society, something we excell at more than any other, we don’t need one more.

  24. Sister Mary Clarence 20 Feb 2008, 3:41pm

    Check out the consultation folks there were strong arguments that we should not adopt the term ‘marriage’.

  25. Robert, ex-pat Brit 20 Feb 2008, 4:25pm

    Bill, for once I agree with everything you say on the subject. Others here don’t want let alone will support our right to choose marriage rather than partnerships. Civil marriage has absolutely no religious connotation either, they can’t get that through their thick skulls. We’re not asking for religious recognition, marriage has existed in some form or other long before the judeo-christian cults came along. All we want is an option to marry, but no, they want to deny us that right, yet they willingly accept the rights of straight marriage, and decry the terminology, nothing more than hypocrites, conflicted ones at that. But what can you expect from people who use female sounding screen names with religious connotations at that? If these partnerships are so equal to marriage, offer them to straights who choose not to marry. Why don’t they? At least in the U.S. civil unions are available to either sexual orientation, not just gays. More innovative than civil partnerships ever will be, but no, they’ll use the lame excuse that straights can marry. Avoiding the issue is what conservatives thrive on let alone reality. Typical of their insularity.

  26. William - Dublin 20 Feb 2008, 4:43pm

    As typical of most people on this site who think that supporting partnerships is “wrong”, you miss completely the context of what I wrote. My reference to honeymoons and vows, in context, is that I refuse to accept this ridiculous trappings of a straight wedding to make me *feel* equal. If you do not *feel* equal, Paul, well that’s another days work… No law in the land will change your concept of equality of you think you are somehow inferior. I personally don’t need a law, or a priest in a ridiculous dress to validate my equality. I am equal, and it’s more of a belief system than a *feeling*, no matter how many *stars* you put around it.Well, your gift for aspersion aside, let me simplify. All I want is the following, a legal frame work to provide (1) inheritance protection (2) pension protection (3) tax allowance and (4) for those with/want kids, joint parental rights or adoption rights, on par with what is referred to as marriage. Now, you can call that partnerships, marriage, or a Mac Donald’s Happy Meal, I really couldn’t care less. Tossing a bouquet, or crying at an alter, that’s a matter of taste, or lack of in my opinion. If I can do this in a solicitors office, or on the internet, then fine. I’m not the crying bouquet tossing type, and neither is my partner. I’ll just throw a party instead.Ironically, those on this site (which I agree is hardly representative of the gay community anywhere) who want us to support gay marriage expect us to do so out of some imposed guilt, but in the same vein, they are not willing to accept those who choose partnerships instead, in fact they are too quick with the insults…. Now there’s inequality for you.

  27. William - Dublin 20 Feb 2008, 4:45pm

    Ah, predictable and repetitive Bill joins in again with a jaded tirade. The man without the passport and the education of a drunken hobo (lies about your so called “degrees” aside). The man who thinks being a racist bigot is okay, but demands that everyone else agree and accept him as gospel.The man who can never back up his lies with any quotes or any factual foundation. Lets reflect a moment on how you slandered Luke, and never got back to him with the quote.Indeed, Bill, I tremble in fear of your uncouth repartee.What’s that Bill, I’m a conservative? Oh, no! Please, don’t say that, it hurts. Saying the same lying crap over and over and over and over again doesn’t make it true. What it does is make you look like a dull retard, an idiot, a liar and a pathetic fraud. If you’re not smart enough, or mentally balanced enough, to make a plausible argument without demonstrating your autistic merits or ability to blatantly lie, then you really shouldn’t try. I won’t dignify that load of badly written nonsense with an answer, because fools like you who make false acquisitions against another don’t deserve one.Bravo, Bill, you’re an absolute disgrace to all gay people worldwide, and I am embarrassed that I have even have to share the term “gay” with you. I can’t wait until the next load of dribble pours fourth from you banging on your keyboard like a retarded chimp. It makes me laugh if nothing else.Although sometimes I think it’s wrong to laugh at someone like you with such an obvious dysfunctional mental condition. Ah, well. No ones perfect.

  28. William - Dublin 20 Feb 2008, 4:54pm

    “they want to deny us that right, yet they willingly accept the rights of straight marriage, and decry the terminology, nothing more than hypocrites, conflicted ones at that”Robert, I fear you are following in the footsteps of more than Bills opinions. NO ONE here has said that or anything even close to it. Simply that they prefer partnerships. You can’t seem to get that through “that through their thick skulls”. You get your marriage, super, I’m delighted for you. Its no skin of my nose either way. But don’t stoop to lying and making up petty insults to make your point, its demeans the point of discussion.

  29. William - Dublin 20 Feb 2008, 4:58pm

    Oh, and Robert, perhaps less of the “conservatives” labelling, simply because I don’t agree with you. I am not a “conservative”, not matter what you or that buffoon Perdue says. I find your insinuations distasteful and petty, and I am fairly sure you and Mr. Perdue dont represent any of the gay people I know in the EU.

  30. Ciaran McMahon 20 Feb 2008, 5:24pm

    William mate youre wasting your breath. This pack of jaded old yankie queens only want somewhere to vent anger, not to discuss news. I once used this comment room, but no more. Ended up trying to reason with sad old bitches and religious nuts. Waste of time, too many extremist freaks screaming hate crime at every person who isn’t as sad and as pathetic as them. And don’t get me started on that Bill Perdue fucker, hes one fucked up gimp. Thinks he’s Fidel Castro. Move on, forget about these people, their opinions dont matter a fuck. Stick with reading the news.

  31. Robert, ex-pat Brit 20 Feb 2008, 5:43pm

    William and I suppose you speak for the majority of Gays in the EU just like others here and just like the minority of Gays during the consultation who chose partnerships over marriage which many of you equally denigrate and while I’m at it, I suppose those select gays who during the “consultation” chose partnerships over marriage speak for ALL British gays? I also suppose you spoke for all the gays in Holland, Belgium, Spain, South Africa and Canada who abolished partnerships and unions? I don’t give a damn if someone wants a partnership, fine and dandy with me since its all there is, none of my business, but you and others here should stop undermining others’ struggle to have the simple right to marry if they so choose as if partnerships were the only panacea to gain equality, they’re not. One isn’t better than the other, though I note some of you fought ardently for all the rights of straight marriage, church based marriage, yet fire back by saying you don’t want to mimick straight marriage. I find that rather conflicted and to some degree hypocritical no matter how you try to skew it. Who mentioned anything about the trappings of marriage as a reason for demanding marriage equality? I didn’t, never have and never will. I don’t give a damn about that either. Who is it who refers to “weddings”, “vows”, “I do’s”, “honeymoons” and other trappings of marriage? Not me, but some partnered couples and Pink News. Nobody influences my views on equality, not even Bill, I have a mind of my own and can think for myself. Open up partnerships to UK and Irish straight couples alike, why should they be exempt just because only marriage is available? The two should be interchangeable and open to both orientations. At least several states here permit that for straight couples alike, far more innovative and fairer.

  32. Robert, ex-pat Brit 20 Feb 2008, 5:49pm

    Ciaran, spelling check…its “yankee”. Queens, huh? Seems that some of us have touched a raw nerve. You’re no better than the straight homophobes.

  33. William - Dublin 20 Feb 2008, 5:59pm

    I do not, not have I ever claimed to, speak for other gays people. I am, however, without apology, and without shame, quite entitled to speak for myself. Lets address your points:”should stop undermining others’ struggle” – no one here has said they are doing that. But don’t expect me to get on your bandwagon just because you think it better for your argument to call me a “conservative”. You are reading an attack where non exists.”church based marriage” – I personally never said that, not can I remember anyone else doing so. Either way, that is not for me.”Open up partnerships to UK and Irish straight couples” – I believe this is what most Irish people want already, its what most of the political parties are pushing for, expect the one in government, of course. I believe the reason other countries don’t do this, is because of the amount of straight people who would chose them in favour of marriage.Now, I believe I have clarified myself fully here. As I said, I couldn’t care less about your want for marriage and how that affects your belief in your own equality, at least not while you spend your time ridiculing those who choose partnerships. I will not apologise to you, or anyone else for that matter, for MY choice, no matter how many insults you hurl at me as a “conservative”.

  34. Robert, ex-pat Brit 20 Feb 2008, 7:15pm

    William, you said “I believe the reason other countries don’t do this, is because of the amount of straight people who would chose them in favour of marriage.”William, most countries with the exception of the UK wherein civil partnerships/unions/PACs are offered, also allow straight couples the same privilege to enter into such a relationship, including the U.S. states where they are available. Goodbye and good luck.

  35. William - Dublin 20 Feb 2008, 7:41pm

    Robert, I couldn’t care less. Seriously, I couldn’t. Discussing this with you is as impossible from trying to get a logical argument from “Bill the Raving Nut Perdue” himself. I’d have better chance getting a meaningful discussion going with a road kill.Its a pity you couldn’t put those two degrees to some use in an discussion rather than screaming “conservative” like a hysterical queen.So, good luck to yourself.

  36. Sister Mary Clarence 20 Feb 2008, 11:09pm

    Robert, as Ciaran’s posting shows you do tend to bring the worse out in people.Although I know you will not have it, you clearly do not understand civil partnerships in the UK. You get a distorted view of life back in the UK through the media and you are completely out of touch with the views of the gay community in this country. Despite what you have previous said about residing in both countries, it transpires from other comments you have made since making that statement that you have been in the States years and your visits to the UK are few and far between. It is abundantly clear that you now know nothing whatsoever about life in this country and you can’t even be honest about where you live.By now you should realise that we are not going to be brow beaten by childish accusations that we are soft on equality, don’t understand it, or don’t believe in it.Ciaran’s posting tells a familiar story of the attitude of yankee/yankie, or whatever spelling you like, twats that laud it over this site. I include you in this, as you seem to have embraced their mindset with open arms.This site is like a magnet for nutters from over there. Where are all the rational thinking Americans? I know they exist – please God the start making their voices heard.And please most of all can someone tell me why the ‘equality harpies’ are always the ones banging on about people’s spelling? You might all want to read up on equality and diversity in relation to people with dyslexia or learning difficulties. I’m sure anyone with an issues in this area is going to encouraged to post comments with the spelling police ready to jump in if they don’t dot a f**king i.Oh, pardon me I forgot the only equality is gay equality.

  37. Robert, ex-pat Brit 21 Feb 2008, 1:46pm

    SMC, whatever you call yourself, I think the shoe is on the other foot. YOU know NOTHING about me, at least I’m honest and do not resort to using fake female screen names for starters. What is it you’re hiding fromand what is it you don’t want others to know? Are you a “wannabe” nun or something? You can’t even be honest about that, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Contradiction knows no bounds.For your information, I reside in the U.S. for about nine months of the year and the rest in the UK on intermittent visits for business reasons. I pay taxes in the UK too, I have a significant number of relatives living there and I still vote there, I read British newspapers, so don’t tell me that I know NOTHING about life in the country of my birth. You assume the air of moral authority, superiority and I suspect you’re a xenophobe when I look at the anti-American slurs you and others hurl at some of us and others from outside the UK just because we don’t reside there 365, 24/7 and because of that are not qualified to make any comment or offer an opinion, because some don’t concur with your views. You can’t even respect differences without resorting to verbal bullying and insults. I think for myself, have a mind of my own and am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions. Nobody tells me what to think, say or do and you don’t speak for every Gay man or woman in the UK either. Your arrogance is mind-boggling.

  38. Sister Mary Clarence 21 Feb 2008, 2:56pm

    Zeke, I am a transplanted Brit living in the U.S. I feel exactly as you do. Whenever progressives such as you and I and others criticise what is wrong in either country, we are denigrated as too left wing and too liberal and unpatriotic. In other words, we don’t love our country or countries because of it. They claim the moral high ground on just about everything. All they’re interested in is lower taxes, accumulation of wealth and privatisation of just about everything that is decent in society, the things they take for granted and enjoy such as universal health care (in the UK), the military, law enforcement, fire brigade (department in the US),secondary (high school) and higher education, libraries….all forms of socialism that they enjoy. They’re nothing but selfish, self-serving sycophants who would sacrifice our rights for political expediency.Robert, ex-pat Brit | 02.06.08 – 1:18 pm | #Right then Robert, lets just run through a few things 1) What am I hiding from? Well I don’t use my real identity on here because there is an issue with nutcases and criminals on the internet (well documented) targeted people in chat rooms and on blogs and sites such as these.2) What don’t I want others to know? I don’t want others to know where I live, where I work and who my family is. This is to protect myself and my family in case they are thieves or nutcases. At this point I’d like to throw a question back to you – why are you so keen to know my identity?3) Am I a nun? No, I’m not – are you?4) You can’t even be honest about that. I don’ think I have every told anybody, or here or elsewhere, that I’m a nun.5) Pot calling the kettle black. To be honest I’m not entirely sure how that idiom fits into the situation at all (either the real one, or your imagined one). Perhaps you could clarify.6) I reside in the U.S. for about nine months of the year and the rest in the UK on intermittent visits for business reasons. This seems to change with the wind, or to suit the conversation you are having at any particular time. To be clear on the issue, if you reside in the US for nine months of the year, then that is your permanent place of residence and all this nonsense about living part of the year in the UK is exactly that – nonsense. You are a visitor to the UK when you come here7) I read British newspapers. Well, you’re obviously not taking in their content that well, judging by your out of touch postings on here. So don’t tell me that I know NOTHING about life in the country of my birth. If you think I’ve suggested that you know NOTHING about the country of your birth then I apologise for not being clear. I only mean to suggest that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about current affairs.9) You assume the air of moral authority, superiority. If I may refer to your little rant posted on the 6th February – “They’re nothing but selfish, self-serving sycophants who would sacrifice our rights for political expediency”. I think its fairly clearly that its something you’re guilty of every once in a while at least.10) I suspect you’re a xenophobe when I look at the anti-American slurs you and others hurl at some of us. Have you ever asked yourselves why there is so much anti American feeling on here? There are not many people who identify themselves as living in the US on here, but of the ones that do, there is a very small, but extremely opinionated, minority that expends copious amounts of time denigrating us, what we think and our way or life. 11) We don’t reside there 365, 24/7 and because of that are not qualified to make any comment or offer an opinion. You certainly are perfectly entitled to offer opinions, but if that opinion is along the lines of, “They’re nothing but selfish, self-serving sycophants who would sacrifice our rights for political expediency.”, as per your posting of 6th February, is it any wonder we don’t embrace you like a long lost friend?12) You can’t even respect differences without resorting to verbal bullying and insults. I certainly can respect other people’s points of view, but it seems very clear that you have difficulty in expressing you opinions in a measured and respectful way as do a number of other people who you often seem to side with in discussions. Again I would draw your attention to the little gem you posted on 6th February, “They’re nothing but selfish, self-serving sycophants who would sacrifice our rights for political expediency.”13) I think for myself, have a mind of my own and am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions. I have not doubt that you do have a mind of your own and that you can form opinions. It is very clear that once that opinion is formed, irrespective of the quality of information used to form it, you will not change it, and moreover you will insult and abuse anyone that offers an alternative view.14) And you don’t speak for every Gay man or woman in the UK either. I most certainly don’t. I speak for myself and should be allowed to do so, without being lambasted for doing so whenever I have an opinion that differs from yours. Just as everyone using this site for the purposes it was designed for, should be able to.Again referring back to your posting of 6th February, I know I did comment on people pulling up other people for spelling on here, but you’ve made a bit of a gaff – you have accidentally used ‘pro’ instead of ‘re’ – the word is ‘regressive’ and not ‘progressive’. I had to laugh when I read it – in your head, there’s you living in eighties Britain and called yourself progressive. As you say, mind boggling.

  39. Robert, ex-pat Brit 21 Feb 2008, 3:44pm

    SMC, try as you may, you’ll never turn it around on me. You can spin it all you want, people can see through you and for what you are.I’m done with you once and for all and I’ll continue to post and annnoy you without let up, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will NEVER harm me. Another thing, I never said you were a nun, I asked if you were or were so inclined. Whatever you are, living behind a female title, Sister Mary Clarence, is absurd. You are a man, are you not? So act like one. Who is it in the UK you fear so much that you have to use a bogus gender in the form of an equally absurd screen name? You’re equal to everyone else in the UK aren’t you and out of the closet I presume? Obviously you live in fear of something. Further, I still maintain a residence in London, so that makes me a resident even if I’m not living there the rest of the year. Next, you’ll be saying I’m not even British. I have proof to that effect and I’ll gladly send you a copy of my passport if you doubt my authenticity. My email address is robertocucina@earthlink.net. How’s that, for all to see? I’m not afraid!

  40. Sister Mary Clarence 21 Feb 2008, 5:17pm

    Very brave displaying your email address for all to see – entirely your choice, but probably if you were living in this country you’d be aware of all the safety information provided that suggests you shouldn’t.“I still maintain a residence in London, so that makes me a resident”. Well that’s just par for the course, let’s not muddy the water with facts eh?Q13: In what circumstances will I be treated as a UK resident for UK tax purposes?A13: To be treated as resident in the UK you must normally be physically present in the country at some time in the tax year. You will always be treated as resident if you are here for 183 days or more in the tax year. There are no exceptions to this. You count the total number of days you spend in the UK – it does not matter if you come and go several times during the year or if you are here for one stay of 183 days or more. If you are here for less than 183 days, you may still be treated as resident for the year if you visit the United Kingdom regularly and your visits average 91 days or more a tax year over a period not exceeding 4 years.The normal rule is that days of arrival in and departure from the UK are ignored in counting the days spent in the UK.As always Robert you never quite get it right but try to carry it off with a bit of indignation.As for the goading, really you’ll have to try better than that, but as you’ve already pointed out, we’re nothing but selfish, self-serving sycophants who would sacrifice our rights for political expediency.And as for turning you around – I think it was actually me that made that point that despite all the evidence in the world that you’re wrong, Robert, in your head, you’ll never actually be wrong.Whine and complain all you like over there – I, William and countless others are, and will continue to be, happy with civil partnerships. We got what we wanted through reasoned arguments and are now beginning to enjoy the benefits of equalities that you and your marriage mafia mates are unlikely to, because you simply cannot be reasonable. The sad thing is that so many other people suffer because of belligerent attitudes like yours.

  41. Robert, ex-pat Brit 21 Feb 2008, 6:20pm

    Ditto, back at you, SMC, blah, blah, blah!!! I know the rules on taxation, I don’t need you to spell it out, your codescension is without precedent. I pay taxes because I own a joint business venture and as such, am subject to taxes regardless of how long I stay in my own country, so there! Again, you know NOTHING about me and mind your own business for a change, while you’re at it. LIke I said, previously, I’m DONE with you and will place you on “ignore”.

  42. Sister Mary Clarence 21 Feb 2008, 7:32pm

    True to form you’ve missed the whole point again Bill, I was pointing out the residency issue, not the taxation issue, which only comes about as a result of the residency status. I couldn’t give a flying f**k about where you do or don’t pay taxes.You are NOT a UK resident, so I can only assume that when you are harping on about staying in your own country, you mean the States, because this my ex-pat friend is no longer your country.I really can’t keep up with you and your changing residency status though, but to reiterate your little rant at the start of the month:Zeke, I am a transplanted Brit living in the U.S. I feel exactly as you do. Whenever progressives such as you and I and others criticise what is wrong in either country, we are denigrated as too left wing and too liberal and unpatriotic. In other words, we don’t love our country or countries because of it. They claim the moral high ground on just about everything. All they’re interested in is lower taxes, accumulation of wealth and privatisation of just about everything that is decent in society, the things they take for granted and enjoy such as universal health care (in the UK), the military, law enforcement, fire brigade (department in the US),secondary (high school) and higher education, libraries….all forms of socialism that they enjoy. They’re nothing but selfish, self-serving sycophants who would sacrifice our rights for political expediency.Robert, ex-pat Brit | 02.06.08 – 1:18 pm |Clearly anyone with a view that differs to your is s**t on your shoe. What did we all do to deserve pompous, self-righteous little rant – merely state that we were in favour of civil partnerships over the term marriage.America is welcome to you and your small minded beliefs. I’m sure you’re fitting in very well.

  43. Sister Mary Clarence 21 Feb 2008, 8:02pm

    Oops – strangely confused you with Bill there for a moment Robert – no insult intended

  44. Bill Perdue 22 Feb 2008, 12:02am

    AGAINST samesex marriage equality – Akinola, Bush, Cameron, Clinton, Huckabee, Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Mugabe, Paisley, Phelps, Putin, Ratzinger, the catholic, mormon and most protestant cults, various and sundry Grand Ayatollahs, the Conservative parties in England and Canada, the ‘Liberal” Party in Australia, the Republican and Democratic Parties in the US, and one or two self loathing Conservative toadies who masquerade as “homosexual gentlemen” and post at pinknews under a number of aliases. FOR samesex marriage equality: most GLBT folks, groups, activists and lots of those pesky outside agitators.

  45. William - Dublin 22 Feb 2008, 12:02pm

    As an Irishman, I love nothing more than to listen to the idiot yanks who this they have a claim to the “auld country” simply because their great grand-pappy knocked one off outside the bushes of an Irish immigrants house. And that supposed to make them Irish. As they sit in a dingy “Irish” bars wiping the tears away from the eyes because the “Fields Of Athenry” is playing on the juke box, and lamenting the Irish “struggle with the British”, when all the while they couldn’t pick out Ireland on a map. Yet these same fools put were the primary source of cash for the IRA so they could bomb the crap out of innocent people back in the EU, to “end the Irish oppression”. Perdue is one of these fools who thinks Wikipedia is the be all and end all of information of “the Irish solution”.Sister Mary, I can only assume that these Brit ex-pat yanks here know more about your life and your country because they suffer from the same delusional “auld country” crap.And we’ve talked about this before and we both always fall into the same trap:- we wrongly assume some of these people are capable of a logical argument. Ciaran is right, you can’t reason with some of these people, they’re mostly extremist who are either too old, too unstable, too angry to allow another point of view to exists. It makes you wonder how “strong” their arguments are when they can’t tolerate any discussion and resort to absolutely ridiculous slander like “conservative” and “hypocrite”. If these insults were even funny, that would be something at least. These are not normal people, as we cannot expect a normal reaction to a discussion. Thankfully most people, gay or straight, don’t have these extremist views. None that I have met at least. And our demented pal Bill is only short of strapping a pack of dynamite around his face and running down to the nearest Democrat rally with sketchy plan to end it all in a blaze of glory. And if he did, no loss to either of us, or the gay world, or even humanity.Unfortunately as you quite rightly said, most of the rational people I’ve had the pleasure of conversing with in here have left or got bored with these people who sound like a dog whistle got stuck down their throat and all they can do is shrill stupid insults like an aging drag queen. Even Luke, sound bloke he is, does not frequent as much, and who could blame him.Having said that, I’ll be damned that I will be quite because of the demands from a few drunken nuts on an internet site! Oh, and Bill, while you might like to think I am a “self loathing Conservative toadies” – and that’s super if it makes you one little bit happier than the sad pathetic fuck you really are – but the reality is that the only loathing I do is for intellectually retarded lairs and racists like you. Keep praying that that revolution will come, and I in turn will pray an retarded old twat like you contracts something to assist your speedily departure from your warped little life. You are the definition of a buffoon, Bill.

  46. Ciaran McMahon 22 Feb 2008, 6:48pm

    William, as a fellow Irishman I agree. Nothing more patriotic, or more stupidly misinformed in the ways of the old motherland, than an ex pat or a second generation immigrant. And Robert, does referring to me, a gay man, as being no better than “straight homophobes”, make you feel superior or right somehow? I doubt it. What in fact it does is make you look like an idiot. Hell will freeze over before the day comes when I worry about the lame insults from a dried up and bitter old bitch like you.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all