He can join the Elton John and Rupert Everett Hall of Fame.
It doesn’t matter what Stephen Fry says, it’s just his opinion.
I shan’t expiate further since I’ve whittered on about this in the past
I think he is spot on. The bottom line is whether the couple think they need to, socially, legally, spiritually. Calling it “Marriage” just pisses off all the God-Botherers, so call it something else and they will go away.
yoking is perfect terminology…just like two oxen or a couple of asses hooked together…ah yes…let the gays be yoked.
Stephen is 100% spot on. Doesn’t matter what you call it – so long as behind the name is writ large the word EQUALITY. Leave the hetty breeders to their “marriage”. Before long us shirt lifters will be bestowed with massive carbon credits for not polluting the world with more offspring – mark my words….. ;)
The name this union gets; the goddies just don’t want gays to be accepted and having some kind of official and social recognition as human beings. Gays are gaining ground and they just don’t like that.
There speaks a twat who doesn’t mind appearing on the chris moyles tv show despite moyles using “Gay” as a disparaging term. Not the only Gay man to appear on it either.
Ol’ Stevie-boy never was one to rock the boat. I like the guy, but his complacency isn’t an attitude I share.
Stephen Fry has carved a role for himself, a lucrative career, playing the grumpy snobby upper-class English TWAT. He’s actually, underneath, just an ordinary English guy like the rest of us. Like Rupert Everett he gets his coverage, he maintains his profile, by making grumpy old cantankerous statements akin to those of some old fossil in a 1930s movie. His sneering attitude to America and Americans during his recent exploration of the USA in a London black cab exemplified this man’s lack of integrity. He cosies up to armchair heterosexual middle-Englanders – and it’s they who are keeping him in clover. He will definitely NOT be remembered as having contributed a jot to the advancement to society. He’s an Oxbridge WANKER.
Call it whatever, but until it equalizes the responsibility, rewards, and benefits given to opposite sex pairing/bonding/union/marriage, it’s unacceptable.
At last a voice of reason in this debate
But, number 9, that is EXACTLY what it does. There is no difference in legal status at all between “marriage” and civil partnerships. We have plenty more important things to work on now – mental health problems as a result of homophobia, bashings and murders, equality for trans people……all far more important than worrying about the word.
It f**king doesn’t matter what it’s called. The only thing that matters is that we have all the legal rights. I wish we would stop arguing over a name, and simply make sure we have all the same legal benefits. Grow up people and start thinking! Stop being twits! And start thinking!
A Civil Partnership does not have the same rights as marriage, if a Civil Partnered couple want to visit another country, say for instance USA, The Civil Partnership is not recognised, marriage is. Mainland Spain recognises Civil Partnerships but they have full same-sex marriage, the Balaeric Islands do not. Other European Countries are agitated about it, we shall have to see whether the European Union will agree to put in place laws to enshrine Same-Sex marriage in all member countries. Marriage is recognised throughout the World, Civil Partnerships are NOT.
And calling it marriage in the UK would make no difference to whether it was recognised in other countries. Let’s fight for that, not for irrelevant word changes.
Never Kissed a Tory, then I guess the reports that PinkNews and other English sites have reported where insurance companies offer discounts for certain policies for men who are married to women but not to men who are civilly partnered to men; and the recent story about the Christian couple who refused to allow a civilly partnered couple to rent a certain room because their policy clearly stated that such accomodations were for “MARRIED” couples only; or the other reports that I’ve read about other businesses, companies, etc. that don’t offer certain benefits and services to civil partners that they offer to “married” couples because they aren’t “married”, I guess those were all lies?
If so then PinkNews owes us all an apology for duping us with these stories.
If they are EXACTLY the same, as you say, they answer one question. Why on earth would your parliament, your labour party, your tory party and your general population fight SO damned hard to call them something else? Why would people expend so much energy to make sure that something that was the EXACT same be CALLED something different? Would it not have been easier, if what you claim is in fact the case, to add gay people to the existing institution rather than going to all the trouble to set up a completely different institution, with a different name, and different paperwork and different reverence in society?
There’s a good reason. Because NO ONE who’s actually married thinks it’s the same thing. Only people who are too lazy, or too complacent or too blind, or just don’t really give a damn, or don’t want to face the fact that they are being treated differently, say that an institution that people worked so hard to keep separate and different is exactly the same.
Look, you feel that we have more important things to deal with. I get that. I get that this just isn’t that important to you. Fine. Why not just say so and leave it at that rather than trying to sell people a mule by calling it a horse?
Make that “a few” questions.
You know what Jack – that is possibly one of the most intelligent and ‘spot on’ postings I have seen for a long time – thanks for summing up my position (frankly, much more eloquently than I could have)!
I believe that it does matter. Why should we call marriage something else. All these nutters on the religious wrong are afraid that somehow same sex marriage will diminish straight marriage. I don’t know how they have come to that conclusion but they have. Straights are doing more harm to heterosexual marriage than same sex marriage will ever do what with their cheating and high divorce rates.
Many Thanks for the positive comments to our comment, why can’t we do away with the word ‘marriage’, and have all Partnerships called Civil Unions, do away with the church involvement,let them do blessings instead and all Gay/Straight Civil Unions made at a Civil Register Office in the UK.
Articulately and clearly put, Jack. Spot on, mate!
There is an elephant in the room here: the fact that not all same-sex couples want a CIVIL partnership/marriage. There are religious institutions that DO recognise same-sex marriage, but no legal recognition is given to them.
This is INEQUALITY.
We recognise marriages undertaken in religious institutions of many faiths. But gay-friendly churches are beyond the pale. Is this an issue of LGB equality or religious equality?
Sue we have (near) equality when it comes to CIVIL marriage (so long as we don’t harbour any ambitions to travel outside the UK), but it is a fatal flaw to assume that gay couples will only ever want civil ceremonies and that gay people are never religious. Many are…
Tony – true not all gay people want a Civil marriage. Some want a religious wedding. But you are aware that a religious marriage has no legal status until the couple in question signs the state register. Granted in a church wedding the signing of the state register is a mere afterthought but it is what legalises the marriage.
If gay people get granted Civil marriage then it follows automatically that if a gay couple finds a church that will marry them then they can legalise their wedding in the church
I have to respectfully disagree with you, Jack. Civil Partnerships and Marriage are IDENTICAL in law in the UK, apart from one very small technical issue relating to dissolution, due to a very antiquated legal definition of what constitutes adultery (it must involve a woman, apparently).
Civil Partnerships and Marriage may not have the same name. They may not be taken “as seriously” by religious bigots that run guest houses and head certain companies. But purely from a legal standpoint, they proffer all of the same rights and responsibilities to the couple. I agree that there is still some inequality in not being able to CALL it marriage. But gay couples can now enter into the same legally binding contract that heterosexuals can.
The reason for the name discrepancy is not, as you say, due to it being something different. It is due to the fact that, if it had been called marriage, the laws would have never got through parliament, and we would be without the provisions we have today. I am certain that, in a few years time, we will follow the same route as Sweden and “convert” the Civil Partnership moniker to “Marriage”. We are currently in a place where we do actually have equality in terms of the legal contract, but not in terms of its name.
And Peter & Michael: you are unfortunately completely wrong about marriages between gay couples being “recognised around the world” and Civil Partnerships between gay couples not. Many countries, no MOST countries, do not recognise either – there is no distinction.
Fantastic post, Jack, thanks very much – I may print it and keep it for reference when having to explain to (married) family members why it matters to me that my CP isn’t called a marriage. Yet. I do agree with you, Simon, that the name change was a pragmatic move to ensure that the legislation actually happened, but that’s just the point – we had to dress it up as ‘different’ to keep certain sectors happy…
I object more to his statement that he is “empowered” to declare he has recently provided the voice-over or commentary for some video game. Has he no respect for the English language?