congratulations to Hungary! One bright spot in the whole of Eastern Europe…yes i know you “marriage” obsessives will poo-poo this, but it will make a real difference to the quality of life for thousands of hungarian gay men and women. It’ll also give encouragement to gay people in the eastern european blackspots like Poland and the Baltic states..And the truth is that if the czech parliament had tried to call this legislation “marriage” it wouldn’t have had a chance of getting through….
Andy, yes, a step in the right direction, but Canada managed to get “marriage” through and abandoned civil unions/partnerships; ditto Holland, Belgium, Spain and as for S. Africa, it never really had any civil union laws but went directly for marriage, ushered in and mandated by the Supreme Court of that country and the only democracy wherein gay rights are enshrined in its written constitution. They all went a step further than the UK for full equality. We have a bit more to go.
i have no problems with the position of canada, spain, belgium and holland….south africa though i think is rather worrying especially if as expected Zuma becomes the next president. South Africa certainly came out of Apartheid intent on delivering full equality to all but the true politics of a lot of it’s politicians are not far from their african neighbours. I hope it doesn’t happen but can’t really see gay equality lasting there, i mean it’s not like the government has spoken out against Zimbabwe’s appalling treatment of gays or indeed everyone else.
We are distressed at being referred to as “marriage fanatics.” How can so simple a proposition as EQUAL treatment, EQUAL standing before the institutions of law and government be referred to as fanaticism?My partner and I have been together now for 52 years – we find semi human rights, partial human rights, equivocated human rights to be deeply offensive.Ward and George52 Years togetherAnd yetStrangers before the law.
I’m one of the people that Andy calls “marriage obsessives”.I commend Hungary.This is a good law. It will benefit unmarried couples, including gay couples. Protecting the rights and the dignity of those who live outside marriage, maybe because they choose to, is GOOD.The problem with the UK law, and its “fans”, is that it is designed to be substitutive of marriage equality… and so this imitation of marriage is limited to gay couples. I repeat: yes to marriage equality and the protection of the rights and the dignity of those who live outside marriage. No to sexual apartheid, like UK’ c.p.
You’re absolutely right Marco civil partnerships are designed to be a substitute for marriage equality, in the same way as my boyfriend’s cock is a substitute for a vagina.We are NOT heterosexual, we are GAY. We do not have to ape everything our heterosexual counterparts do. We have a legally recognised status that is equivalent to heterosexual marriage, but of course that isn’t good enough for some of us, is it?It has a different name and so it must be worse, it must be something lesser and we must be getting screwed over. All of us that support this ‘lesser’ civil partnerships are lesser gays that are letting the gay side down.I don’t know where you live Marco, but here gay people are not (any longer) a down trodden underclass, so once and for all I’d be grateful if people could stop slagging off civil partnerships as being shit when, in general 1) they don’t even live in the f**king country and 2) they don’t even know what they’re talking about.
I think personally that civil partnerships are rather demeaning, if they are supposed to be equal then they should have the same name, a different name means that they intended a different mind set towards them, but gay people accept civil partnerships because we are conditioned in to believing that second class is all we are capable of being, legally gay people are equal in Britain, sadly it is clear that British culture is defined by racism and heterosexism. Laws send messages to the public and the government needs to send the message that they support gay relationships they can’t do that while they draw a distinction between two kinds of love.
David, as a Brit myself, it saddens me to say that with centuries of class structure for which we are renowned, civil partnerships are just another strata that has been added to our already class-ridden society. Its ingrained in our psyche and it will take centuries to eradicate it if at all. Whether the pro CP group likes it or not, we are the same as straights in every other way except with whom we choose to sleep or love, nothing more. A lot of them are in denial. They say they don’t want marriage but if tomorrow CPs were replaced with marriage, I suppose most wouldn’t bother to tie the knot because of the contempt most of them have for marriage in general. revealing. The backlash some of us have received along with the foul language, abusive and insulting comments are evidence enough that there is a lot of denial going on as to just exactly what equality means.
Sister Mary Clarence…You’re trying to diminish my words by saying that I don’t live in UK… it’s ridiculous: should I live there to call segregation “segregation”??The fact that we’re gay, and not heterosexual, cannot be used to justify our segregation. Diversity is not something to exclude and segregate, diversity is something to respect and free from discrimination.You’re against aping… but civil partnerships are aping. They ape marriage. They imitate marriage! UK should understand that gays are worthy of marriage, not only to ape marriage.
MarcoMilano, aren’t you being a little oppressive in demanding that all gays should support “gay marriage” and dam anyone who opposes your point of view?Haven’t you heard of choice? I, like Sister Mary, have no want or desire to mimic heterosexual relationships by getting married. Once the legalities are the same as marriage, then I’m happy. And that’s my choice. I am entitled to it. What’s wrong with you people in that you have to insist everyone agree with your stand point? You are not entitled to ram your opinion down my throat until I bleed from the eye sockets and agree with you. Its a free world, and people who are happy with civil partnerships should be allowed express that without a hissy fit being made by those who insist we all scream for marriage. It doesn’t mean we are any less in favour of gay rights, we may support gay marriage for those who want it. You get no where by behaving like the religious nuts we are defending ourselves against.
Dear William…I do not seek to impose anything to anyone. I jus say:LET EVERY SINGLE PERSON DECIDE WHETHER TO MARRY OR NOT, WHERTHER TO BE A REGISTERED PARTNER OR NOT.That is what I say.If a person wants to marry his/her loved one… why should we say “no you must not do it you must do it something else”? Only because he/she is gay?? Absurd. If a person feels that marriage is not for him/her and wants to form a sort of civil registered pact with his/her loved one… why should we say “no you must not do it you must do it something else”? only because he/she is a hetero?? Absurd.Everyone should be free TO CHOOSE.The only omes that are trying to impose something to ALL gays are people like Sister Mary Clarence, here. They want to mantain the exclusion of gay people from the choice of marriage and want to impose to ALL gays that seek recognition of their couple the segregated status of “registered civil partners”.
Then, MarcoMilano, you should read Sister Mary’s comments again, as I didn’t get that at all from her comments. I think you are reading what you expect to read… all I saw was someone asking you stop demeaning civil partnerships. And I agree… especially when in demeaning them, you insult everyone who has chosen to be in one.
No, William…I’m not insulting anyone. I’m criticizing a segregation law, and the homophobia on which that law is based. I’m not insulting anyone in saying that everyone should be free to choose, that gays should not be considered as unworthy of marriage, as worthy only of an imitation of marriage! I’m simply expressing an opinion that is against any imposition. Being for the freedom of choice is not an insult to anyone.
Well Marco, I do not see a “segregation law”, I see a brave move by the British government to protect one of its more vulnerable citizens, and continues to do so with its SOR laws. I think its reactionary to call it that progress a “segregation law”. If you feel inferior because you are not allowed to marry, then I feel a little bit sorry for you. I do not need such a mechanism to feel equal. Equality comes from many places, some within, and I measure my life by different standards.
William… I’m against a law that officially marks gays and lesbians as unworthy of marriage, worthy only of an imitation of marriage. Simply put. I do not feel inferior and I am not against gays and lesbians that have chosen to be in a civil partnership maybe because of the legal consequences that flow from it, maybe for other reasons.You don’t see the segregation… Isn’t it a “separate but equal” regime?? Separate but equal is segregation. That’s it. Of course, I’m talking not in a physical sense but in an institutional sense. If a Government wants to eliminate discrimination it has… well… to eliminate discrimination; if a Government choses to mantain discrimination and tries to justify it by creating a ghetto for those who are discriminated that Government is doing something that I cannot consider simply as “protecting vulnerable citizens”.You want rights to those who live outside marriage? Good. Act like France, the Netherlands, Hungary, etc. (protect de facto couples and create a civil registry, full of legal rights, for the couples that want to be recognized outside the institution of marriage). There is no need to create a segregating law like the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
‘Segregation’? ‘Ghetto’? What planet are you on Marco? Have you been to Britain the last ten years by any chance? How can I diminish your words? I think you’re doing that quite sucesfully without any assistance from me.Having one name for a legal union between people of the opposite sex and another for people of the same sex is about clarity.Are you ashamed of being gay, is that the issue here? Do you feel you can’t enter into a civil partnership because the whole world will know your a homo? Otherwise there can be no justification for your position other than purely to be contrary.The word marriage is already shared between heterosexual couples and polygamists, why clutter it up even more with another meaning.Has it ever occurred to you that those who enter into a civil partnership are open and proud to have done so? Hiding behind the word marriage does not tell the world that two men or two women have legally cemented their relationship. It is not explicit. It waters down a landmark in gay equality.You’ll be telling us next that the word ‘gay’ segregates us and that we’ve got to start calling ourselves straight.Have you got self-loathing issues by any chance?
Sister Mary ClarenceThere’s no need to be there to call segregation “segregation”. Your politicians have approved sexual apartheid.It’s not about clarity, because there is nothing to clarify: one person want to marry his/her loved one… he/she should be allowed to do it. Simply put. The recognition of two persons that love each other, and that want to express their love and commitment through the universally understood and deeply rooted institution of marriage, does not require public investigation. I re-ask you: WHY is it right to exclude gays from the choice of marriage and WHY is it right to impose to all gays and lesbians that want to be recognized a separate legal status? You’re not answering.It’s not about being ashamed of something, It’s not about being polygamysts-friendly, It’s not about fearing the word “gay”: It’s about personal freedom. Those who want to marry should be able to do it… those who feel that marriage is not for them and, maybe, want to sign a civil registered pact should be able to do it. I think I’ve been very clear.
Marco, you are a gay man trapped in a straight world. Why do you insist that we embroil ourselves in the deeply rooted straight institution of marriage? In time civil partnerships will also become as institution if we let them rather than screaming and shouting that we are being persecuted.We have civil partnerships in this country and they are very popular. It seems to me that those who are so set against them are people from outside the UK. As long as we are happy with them I see no need to change them, particularly on the say so of a small handful of non-UK residents.I think the expression is, ‘your comments are noted’.
Marco, when Mother Superior asks “Why do you insist that we embroil ourselves in the deeply rooted straight institution of marriage?”, what he’s really telling you is that raising the question of samesex marriage equality is like banging on his closet door. He’s in a political closet called the Conservative Party but that party has a long history of deeply ingrained bigotry, as do their cousins in the Paisleyite DUP. Mother Superior imagines that as long as he’s discreet and docile he’ll be tolerated by the Tories, although it’s a sure bet that as soon as he leaves the room his Conservative ‘friends’ stop saying ‘gay’ and begin using gay bashing terms like ‘faggot’. That’s why the very idea of saying “that we are being persecuted” terrifies him. Such talk stirs up the inbred homobigotry of the Conservative Party and drives his Thatcherite friends up the wall. However bigoted their actions they bitterly resent being branded bigots. Labour has been less than eager to promote full equality for GLBT folk but it’s clear that the Tories are absolutely opposed to full samesex marriage equality and put a drag on all issues connected with full equality. What ever excuse is used it’s clear that he’s just an inept hand puppet for the Conservative Party. And from the comments it also clear that his attempt to say that only wretched foreigners support samesex marriage is another of his lies. He appealing to the insular idiocy, long since rejected by most English which claims that “Wogs start at the Channel”.
ooh, ohh, ohh, Bill’s Barmy Bingo …That’s one point for Thatcherite and unfortunately I’ve already claimed the points for Thatcherite and Paisleyite on one of the other stories.
Sister Mary Clarence…I’m not trapped in anything and I do not desire to force anyone to do anything against his/her will. I’m simply saying “let every single person decide for themselves”.Again… you did not answer questions.You say “In time civil partnerships will also become as institution”… well I say you that gays and lesbians have the right to an equal recognition right now, not in 2050 or in 4000. Marriage exists since ancient roman times. Even the day in which civil partnerships would become, if ever, deeply rooted as maggiage is after centuries and millennia of existing… there would still be no reason to segregate gay and lesbian love into a separate institution.You say that UK gays and lesbians are happy to be segregated and so you don’t think that the laws needs to be changed. I say to you that laws should change, even if Sue Wilkinson Celia Kitzinger (the two married women that sued the Government months ago asking for recognition) were the only same-sex couple asking for marriage equality in UK. Sue and Celia have the right to be recognizes as married. The fact that there are people that want to be recognized outside marriage does not mean that is good to impose segregation to ALL gays and lesbians.-
Oh, well done Bill! Well done, indeed! Another fine rant of absolutely zero substance from a man who no education and even less literacy. I see you managed to to get the Ireland mention in. Well done on relevance there. You DO just cut and paste the SAME passage in response to EVERY comment here, don’t you?I’m assuming you’ve had no luck with getting the airline ticket? No, I suppose they don’t let people with your level of medical need travel too often.You’re only expertise in life is how to have a histrionic fit. And you even manage do THAT without any class.Run along now, Bill, I’m sure you have a goat to kill in honour of your communist gods or something.
here we go again…….marcomilano…obviously you have a right to your opinions on the legal status of gay couples in the uk even though you don’t live here..what worries me is why you want to run down the uk’s laws on this issue to such a degree when your own country is so many miles behind ours..it’s like criticising vegetarians for not being full on vegans while being a meat eater yourself…(sorry about the analogy but i just don’t get it…) why can’t you just say that it your opinion the uk situation isn’t perfect but it’s a damn sight better than anything italy or the US or every other country in the world has with the exception of the 4 full gay marriage countries…now by my reckoning that puts the uk in the top 5 of all the countries in the world as far as legislation to protect and acknowledge the rights of gay couples are concerned…i for one am very proud of that..where is italy…number 30…number 50…. also you say you don’t demean those in civil partnerships…but you do…you talk about segregation..what segregation…have you ever been to a civil partnership ceremony…mine took place at haringey council officers in the same room with the same official as the nigerian straight couples getting married before and after us…many of the vows and exchanging of the rings were the same…but neither my partner nor i are women so we didn’t wear white dresses like the nigerian women…we didn’t have bridesmaids in crinoline and we didn’t sign a marriage certificate we signed a civil partner ship certificate which grants us EXACTLY the same rights and responsibilities as the straight couples get through marriage…you are right i do not like the term marriage for gay people, you say marriage has existed since roman times…yes and it’s always been between a man and a woman , ahusband and a wife…me and my partner are 2 men..there is no husband and no wife, we don’t play those roles…. If you are a man and you say you’re married, the immediate response is always…”where is/ how is your WIFE”. Finally you talk about apartheid and a seperate legal status, that’s rubbish. i think anyone could tell you that under apartheid laws black people did not have anything resembling equality… i have FULL equality with heterosexual married couples… i don’t have seperate legal status…i have exactly the SAME legal status as a straight married couple the only diference is a single word “marriage” . It seems so pedantic and irellevent to dismiss all the advantages of civil partnership over the one word. Bottom line is that since in LAW..civil partnerships in this country are COMPLETELY EQUAL there are only 2nd rate if YOU believe them to be. I would never say that you were embarrassed/ashamed to be gay.. i have no idea because i don’t know you… but your insistence that gay people are being discriminated against on partership rights in the uk, when they are not, doesn’t make any sense to me…
Andy…The fact that my country has really homophobic politicians does not diminish the fact that you in UK have sexual apartheid. I was visiting this web site and I thought it was fine to say it, and answer to your objections. Simply put. I’m not obsessed with UK laws, I simply say that I don’t think it is right to ban gays and lesbians from the choice of marriage and impose a separate system to all same-sex couples that want to be recognized. Because all human beings should be free to chose for themselves. Because gays and lesbians deserve to be considered worthy of marriage, not only of an imitation of marriage. Gays and lesbians are equal human beings, not human beings made to ape the rest of society. By saying these things… by saying that UK gays and lesbians (also those who are civil partnered) should demand full equality… I’m not insulting anyone. I’m simply saying: you deserve more.You say that you do not have separation, that you don’t have a separate status… what?? Civil Partnership is a new legal union, enstabilished by a new Act (the Civil partnership Act 2004). It means that is not marriage: it is another thing: so, by definition, it is separate from marriage. In the past Americans had fountains for whites and fountains for blacks, schools for whites and school fro blacks, railroads for whites and railroads for blacks… now in UK you have a legal union for heteros and a legal union for homos. The status of the gays and lesbians who enter in a civil partnership is “registered civil partner” (a separate status from ‘spouse’, or ‘husband’). You have separation. It’s a fact. Of course, not in a physical sense, but in an institutional sense. It’s the separation that makes me say ‘segregation’. Civil Partnership can give all the legal consequences that you want, but it’ a segregated legal union.It makes no sense saying that marriage must not be opened to same-sex couples because “it’s always been a union between a man and a woman”. It’s circular reasoning. You do not justify an exclusion by saying that this exclusion exists.I really don’t understand you: you do not want to marry, you want another thing… that’s fine… I’m not criticizing your personal aspirations and desiders… I am saying that I think that it is not right to ban UK gays and lesbians from the choice of marriage and IMPOSE civil partnership to ALL UK gays and lesbians that want to be recognized as couples. I find that it would be right to let every single gay/lesbian decide for him/herself whether to marry or not: it would be right to let every person (regardless of sexual orientation) choose between marriage and other solutions.-
MarcoMilano, you argument makes no sense. While I agree with some of the arguments posted here in gay marriage provides some people with the feeling of equality and choice, the law is not a fully equal institution. It cant be, because society contains many different needs. For example, maternity leave is not necessarily equal for males and females. The rights of the married are not equal with the rights of the single person, especially in tax. I’m not saying its right or wrong, but what you say are inequalities I see as meeting the needs of the different segments of society.And bear this in mind, not everyone sees themselves as unequal in this world because they can’t do what the common masses do. Maybe you do feel unequal, and no doubt a hysterical fool like Bill feels unequal to what he scrapes off his feet, but I don’t need the label of marriage to feel like I have a place in society. I would be very happy if Ireland adopted what the UK has been brave enough to do so I can secure my partners legal rights and vice versa. So its not called marriage, big bloody deal… I prefer it that way. Its a bit like fighting for the right to have children when you don’t have a womb… its pyrrhic victory, my friend. What’s wrong with being different, I like being different…. its why I have the affluent and wonderful life I have. Besides, I don’t want straight people imposing their marriage on to me, not the other way around…
Marco, its no use discussing the issue any more. The fact that our government had to enact a separate, different law for gay and lesbian couples speaks for itself and is proof that our relationships are not equal, they never will be. Five countries so far have proved that, four of which already had civil unions offering the rights of marriage long before we were thinking of marriage equality in the UK. These people are content with what they have, let them enjoy their version of equality, its not yours and its not mine and neither is it the majority opionion of gay and lesbian in most societies. I choose not to have such a parntership, instead I will marry in Canada instead and have a real marriage. It will be recognised as such once I return to New York, the only state so far that fully recognises same-sex marriage from the other four countries that offer them, my own country, the UK does not. Sad isn’t it and insulting?
Exactly, Robert. I completely agree.PS: My e-mail is email@example.com What’s your e-mail adress? Let’s keep in contact. Maybe we can talk and share pics of each other, perhaps one day meet in UK also for sex if you like -
I agree with the other American who posted a comment- civil unions instead of marriage is the same thing as “separate but equal”- a phrase used during the period of Jim Crow laws in the US. The point lies not in the fact that different terms are used- “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, as Shakepseare says- but in the fact that often civil partners do not have the same rights as married couples. There’s no way to deny it.Either we go with equal marriage rights for everyone or we go with equal civil union rights for everyone- but “equal” is the essential word. It has to be “equal” to be EQUAL.
post3 – just to keep you up to speed, they are entirely equal in the UK. The sticking point for some it that we have two terms ‘marriage’ and ‘civil partnership’. There status is entirely the same here though.I cannot get my head around why civil partnerships are so popular with gay people in this country, but so unpopular with those from elsewhere.