Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Video: Star Trek’s Mr Sulu defends his California gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Reg is rich enough, and enough of a celeb for it not to make any difference. However, there are, in Europe even, that don’t recognise CP.

    I for one know that CP is inferior to arriage for things like pensions, and I want equality since I’ve been paying for the privilege all my working life!

  2. I agree Civil Partnership is not marriage – I think CP was needed to make “things” go further and it was a huge step
    Today Same sex marriage is becoming the only acceptable union

    I do not understand after 6 months of same sex marriage – suddently after a vote – people’s rights are gone ??????????
    I have never heard suck a think in my life – never

  3. Can someone tell me what the hell the difference is?
    I think Elton is spot on. Stop whinging.
    I had no idea that a CP was already available in California, so all this is a simple matter of semantics?

    Sounds to me like some people just want to rub Christian’s noses in it.

  4. Rob – I kind of agree on one level that CP is marriage in all but name, but you could equally argue that the christians are trying to rub the LGBT communities’ noses in it.
    I’m not entirely sure who has the authority to say gay marriage doesn’t constitute proper marriage anyhow, seeing as how marriage itself crosses so many cultural boundaries and religions. Even if the bible defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, what about other cultures? I’m just of the opinion that semantics is being deployed as a tool for rampant homophobia, and that’s where the objection lies. Between a man and a woman? Who says it must be, and why? Because it just is? Not a good enough answer IMO.

  5. i think those who want full marriage should fight for it, but Elton’s right in one respect, it’ll take much much longer to achieve especially in a country that considers it self as religious as the US. Rob, i think the “problem” is that different countries (states) have created Civil Partnerships, with widely different rights attached, i’ve no idea what the california civil partnerships entitled the partners to, but can i make this point AGAIN. British Civil Partnerships are identical to British marriages with regard to EVERYTHING. So apYrs, you are incorrect in that respect, any pension which provides provision for a surviving husband/wife in the UK must provide the same provision for a surviving Civil Partner…it’s the LAW. And like i’ve said before British civil Partnerships provide full immigration and working rights for non-British Civil Partners, no US gay “marriage” in any of the states that allows them has even tried to do that, so if you’re an American gay man and you marry your foreign partner, he can be deported, the “marriage” means absolutely nothing…well as someone with an American partner, Gay “marriage” US style is currently completely worthless, whether in California/Conneticut/Massachusetts where-ever, whereas British Civil Partnership has given my American Partner, permanent residency for the rest of his life, a life long work visa and by next spring a full british passport, so until ANY of the American states can over the same, can people stop pretending US style marrriage is better. Spanish/Canadian/Dutch gay marriage are Equal or if you are really obsessed with the word “marriage” better than UK Civil Partnership, but everything in the US done on a state by state basis is just a signisficant but token gesture. America can only have gay marriage mean something when it happens on a nationwide federal level. Elton’s point and mine is that by using the word “marriage”, you are delaying vital legislation by years or decades, because that word antagonises the religious communities far more than any other.

  6. Well the simple factor is a straight couple can me married in a registry office, with no religious connections whatsoever. The Church never seem to complain about that. However, I suspect that when they were originally suggested, there was probably an uproar that a marriage wasn’t “seen in the eyes of God”. I have also heard it said that a marriage can be defined by two people without witnesses, priests or anyone else. It is the decision of the couple themselves. However, this would not be considered in most countries as legally binding.

    I see all this argument is the Church not liking the concept of homosexuals (which is a sin) having the same rights as themselves.
    Equally, Gays are not willing to play second fiddle to what amounts to exactly the same thing, except in name. Frankly, I think both parties are pathetic. I am in a UK civil partnership, my partner and I receive equal rights and benefits, and we are effectively as married as Mr & Mrs Smith next door. What’s to argue about?

    Incidentally, isn’t it about time USA dropped all this state law bollocks? They don’t make one, they make 52 every time someone has a squabble. It should be voted in or out in the senate and made countrywide effective. Do what virtually every other democratic country on the planet does, and stop spending ridiculous amounts of time, money and effort doing each state individually.

  7. Robert, ex-pat Brit 13 Nov 2008, 1:24pm

    For those not familiar with the American political system…..the U.S. like many others in westen Europe and elsewhere is a republic, each state, canton, province, region with its own internal government. The U.S. is comprised of 50 states NOT 52. Civil marriage has absolutely NO religious component and the U.S. government should not be in the business of issuing marriage licenses to those who want a religious ceremony. This is a direct conflict between separation of church and state as proclaimed in the constitution. Further, the rights of any minority are guaranteed by full protection, meaning that the majority vote cannot deny the rights of any minority. The success of proposition 8 totally ignored the rule of constitutional law and could be overturned. The California Supreme Court that ruled in favor of marriage equality by a vote of 4-3 declared that relegating same-sex couples to a separate institution via civil unions is unconsitutional, plain and simple, a form of segregation. One of the judges who voted for full equality was a republican (conservative).

    apYrs, are you saying that civil partnerships are not equal when it comes to pensions? Why is that and why has it not be rectified or is that gay couples just don’t care?

  8. Elton John who married a woman and pretended to be straight who jumped in to CP as soon as it was ‘acceptable’ and ‘cool’ to be gay – a situation fought for and achieved by those of us who were always out regardless of the consequences – telling us not to go too far and want what everyone else has well F*** off Elton always relied upon to not want to upset the straights and the bigots

  9. Andy is right about the immigration issue. I was from the US, I moved to the UK to be with my Irish wife (we married in California last June). It was extremely difficult for us as since Ireland does not recognize same sex couples, as well as the US…we had to pick up and move to someplace foreign to both of us. Even then, some places know absolutely NOTHING about CPs. My bank refused to acknowledge my wife, and put my prefix as Miss. The GP outright said “if you were married you’d count for health care”. The UK is MILES ahead of the US, the US will take years to catch up. However…this entire Prop 8 thing has me infuriated. I take it as a superficial issue. As I’ve been told my entire life I can’t do this or that because I was born female…I’ve become rather irked towards the gender I was born as. Not because I don’t like being female, but mostly because people keep telling me that BECAUSE I’m female I cannot do and love what I love. If I love another woman, then I have every right to marry her, regardless of what I look like physically.

  10. @andy : re pensions
    is that why my (govt) employer is stealing 12 years of service off me with respect to my partner’s survivor’s pension (ie they’ll only assess it from 1988).

    If he dies before me, and I marry the day before I die. a wife would have the full 40 years.

    No there are inequalities here and there, and they’ll only come out in time.

    Our CPs are also unrecognised by places such as France, who do recognise same sex marriages.

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
Tag Code: