What are the Caymans so uptight about? Civil partnerships aren’t marriages.
oh robert, don’t start this again!!! how many times! Contrary to your comment the cayman islands have realised, as most british people have, that gay civil partnerships ARE gay marriages in every respect, legally, socially and politically. The point of this article is not your continued obsession with the word “marriage”, it’s the fact that a british teritory is trying to opt out of british law, and deny gay british citizens and british overseas territories citizens that are born/resident in the caymans, the rights which other gay british citizens have, and this is motivated entirely by homophobia. I don’t know what legal status britains overseas territories have with regard to ignoring or implementing UK laws, but this is a worrying development. and one that all gay british people should be concerned about, because the issue is about equal rights on inheritance, immigration status, next of kin status, alongside offial respect and recognition of our relationships….that, as i’ve said over and over, is far more important than syntactical quibbles about the word “marriage” versus “civil partnership”
Andy, since when are they “gay marriages”. Where is it written? Have they been merged into the marriage act yet? A resounding: NO! They may offer most if not all of the rights of marriage, but in reality they are not. The British government has made that quite clear. Why should it bother you anyway, you don’t believe in marriage for gay people and from what I’ve read on this site for the past several months, British gays do not want marriage, fair enough, so please, stop comparing them to marriage. Until they are recognised as such you can skew it all you want. Only six countries permit same-sex marriage, the UK does not and never will. Its not a question of semantics, the fact of the matter is, they are what they are. Answer me this then. If they were marriages, why does our government refuse to recognise a legal marriage certificate wherein it states “certificate of marriage” of same sex British couples who have to leave the UK to marry only to return home and told that their marriage is not a marriage but a civil partnership, why? How much simpler must I make it or what is it you refuse to admit or recognise? In New York State where I reside several months of the year, we don’t have civil partnerships or unions,though marriage is pending in the state assembly and will pass if republicans lose control of the state senate, yet….this state recognises same-sex marriages performed elsewhere as valid marriages, it doesn’t relegate them to domestic partnerships, civil unions or partnerships, but marriages. What is so difficult for you to understand? Segregation is not about equality and its not about being different.
“…. this state recognises same-sex marriages performed elsewhere as valid marriages, it doesn’t relegate them to domestic partnerships, civil unions or partnerships, but marriages ….”
So we must be wrong – typical f**king American attitude – never them always everyone else got the problem.
Don’t worry, the whole f**king world doesn’t mind changing to suit George Bush’s world view.
Sister Mary, having another hissy fit! You’re dead wrong! Civil Partnerships are most definitely NOT marriages. Where is it written in law, which legislation passed by parliament calls them marriages? Last time I heard, Tony Blair and his government said they are not. So explain the following:
Sister Mary, having another hissy fit? You’re dead wrong. Can you provide evidence where civil partnerships are defined and recognised as marriages in the UK? Where is it written? If you can’t, then explain the following in the link below published by Pink News.
Throughout the three months of consultation various campaigns were run both in support of and in opposition to the Government’s overall proposal. The two largest, and most statistically significant, were those run by Stonewall in support of civil partnership and by the Christian Institute in opposition to the proposal.
Overall 83% of respondents supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme. The response is summarised in Table 5 below.
Table 5 – Overarching Responses to Consultation
Individuals Organisations Overall
Supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme
Individuals – 84%
Organisations – 74%
Overall – 83%
Opposed, or did not offer an opinion on, the principle of a civil partnership scheme
Individuals – 16%
Organisations – 26%
Overall – 17%
Of those Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual organisations that responded:
95% (35 responses) supported the Government’s proposal;
5% (2 responses) opposed, or did not offer an opinion on, the principle of a civil partnership scheme.
Of those representing the Public Sector:
85% (70 responses) supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme;
15% (12 responses) opposed, or did not offer an opinion on, the principle of a civil partnership scheme.
Of those representing the Private Sector:
42% (5 responses) actively supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme;
58% (7 responses) did not offer an opinion on the principle of the scheme7 and none opposed the principle of a civil partnership scheme.
Of those representing the Voluntary Sector:
77% (10 responses) supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme;
23% (3 responses) opposed, or did not offer an opinion on, the principle of a civil partnership scheme.
Of those representing Trade Unions:
91% (10 responses) supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme;
9% (1 response) opposed the principle of a civil partnership scheme;
Of those representing nationally-based religious group
53% (9 responses) supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme;
47% (8 responses) opposed, or did not offer an opinion on, the principle of a civil partnership scheme;
Of those representing individual religious groups and congregations9:
15% (3 responses) supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme;
85% (17 responses) opposed the principle of a civil partnership scheme.
The views of the man on the street, your average British tax payer, seems to be that civil partnerships providing equal rights are what we want rather than lookie-likie marriage.
At last, I stand vindicated and correct about what I posted!
In your head you probably are ….
No, SMC, Sir Mark Potter declared same-sex marriages to be recognised only as civil partnerships. Skew it all you want, I stand vindicated and you can’t admit your were wrong. Take it up with Potter and the British government if you think otherwise.
Robert, what are you eating for breafast in the morning? since when did the campaign for equality become the campaign for the same?
As one of the contributers to the consultation on this very subject, I like a number of other individuals and groups was very clear that I wanted something that offered the same rights as a marriage but was NOT marriage. I do not want to mimic my heterosexual friends, I want to be treated equally to them.
Its about time you got over this, really it is!!
I’m afraid you’re preaching to the ‘will not understands’. Robert doesn’t live here, so does not see civil partnerships and how well they are working. He has made it very clear that he considers us inferior for even accepting them.
It good to here from someone who was involved in the consultation process and did support the notion of a separate but equal status relationship.
Civil partnerships might become acceptable if the connection between partnering and superstitious cults was abolished along with marriage itself. The cults have no business being involved in civil institutions like partnering, education or politics. If the cults we denied access to the process of partnering and if the only form of partnering recognized were civil partnerships then no one would have any objections.
At present though, the promotion of civil partnerships is used by bigots to further our status as second class citizens. Only homophobes support the second class status they confer.
Bill, what Leeds and SMC don’t get is that the “separate” in equal is not equal. Its a polite term for segregation which they’ve now self-imposed, a form of self-loathing. Now how regressive does it get? Maybe one day the EU will legislate for full marriage across the union. What will these marriage haters do then? I find it more than hypocritical that they don’t want marriage, yet mimic the very thing they don’t want. They think they are being radical and different, but in reality its not. As more countries abandon the mish-mash of legal recognition for gay couples, none of them uniform wherever you go, these anti same sex marriage haters will find themselves even further on the margins of society than they already are. Separate is NEVER equal or inclusive, never has been, never will be.