Why is there no comment from Summerskill on the fact that 61% of the British public support gay marriage, but Stonewall doesn’t?
It would be interesting to hear the opinion of Govt who consider CP good enough for us but not for straights.
But we know politicians won’t stand up to the religious busybodies unless pressed
Oh my, is that the highest percentage in Europe? Consider yourself enlightened.
But why do we need to have the right to get “married”? Marriage is totally religious and we’re all harping on about how we hate religion on here. Why would we want what they have when there is an equal, secular alternative that can afford us all the rights and responsibilities we need? Perhaps a couple of things may need ironing out in CPs, but you change the CP – not fight for an “upgrade” to marriage. It seems gays think marriage is superior. I’m happy with CPs, though a slightly less clumsy name would be better. It just seems to be fighting for the sake of fighting for what we can’t have even when we don’t actually want it or need it. It’s religious, it’s not our territory.
‘Full marriage’ is inappropriate in essence as most Christians/churches do not want anything to do with us.
For the minority of gay Christians- go and find a gay vicar or whoever to do it.
Otherwise, leave these churches alone, we’re trying to enforce our views on them, doing exactly what they’ve done to us for 2 millenia . We accuse them of enforcing views on us and yet here everyone is, moaning to do the same! Unbelievable!
They don’t want anything to do with us, and the feeling is mutual!
Gay marriage is a slight misnomer. It’s really unisex marriage – gender would be removed as a criterion. That’s important to transgender and intersex people who are neither clearly male nor female and therefore neither straight nor gay. “Separate but equal” excludes them where “unisex” does not.
WOW! We have suddenly become englightened eh! As to the religious side of “marriage” I am sure people who are “married” in a register office do it because they don’t want religion services; still means they are married. Still call my CP my hubby(!)
I don’t understand why Monkeychops says that marriage is “totally religious”. Lots of people get married in registry offices. There are no religious trimmings to civil marriage.
Monkeychops also says, “[W]e’re all harping on about how we hate religion on here.”
We don’t ALL do that, do we? And perhaps some of those who do express hate for religion mean institutionalised religion rather than matters spiritual as such.
Marriage is an entirely religious phenomenon? What utter twaddle. Marriage is a civic institution, it pre-dates organised religion and has no necessary connection to it whatsoever. Religious groups have simply parasitised this universal human institution and (rather successfully, alas) spread the pernicious lie that it was their turf to begin with. This is a standard religious trick – many of them try it with the idea of morality as well, which is also entirely independent of their facile superstitious nonsense. By conceding marriage to the religious one is playing by their rules and implicitly buying in to the baseless and harmful assumption that they have any special competence over it, or, indeed, over anything. It is high time society at large were disabused of such a demeaning notion.
Somewhat to get back to the point, I only hope these survey figures are accurate. They seem a wee bit optimistic to me, sadly. What was asked of whom? When? How? Etc etc…
I fully echo the idea that marriage is not historically a religious phenomenon. The church had very little interest in it until the Middle Ages and it was considered a concession to the incontinent in mainstream theology. The efforts put into stopping priests getting into it were gargantuan. Why did Chaucer say that the Wife of Bath had five husbands at the church door? Because the Church did not deign to let most people get married inside. It was a privilege for the powerful and occasionally for the priests’ relations.
It is time to forget all this nonsense in a pluralistic society. Let us have a single form of legal compact for everyone and let private individuals and groups call it marriage or for that matter Mickey Mouse if they wish.
I tend to agree with Vincent. The church doesn’t own marriage. They can choose who they marry in their churches if they want (no divorcees, etc) but they shouldn’t be allowed to impose their views on everyone else outside of church. If a staright couple are refused permission to marry in a church because one of them has been divorced, they can still go and marry in a civil ceremony. Why should they be allowed to do that, but LGBT people not? It’s no business of the churches.
The term Civil Partnership was chosen so as to not offend religious people, but has that stopped them bitching on about gay ‘marriages’ – eg Ladele and that woman recently (Davis?). No, it hasn’t.
I like the attitude in Sweden where marriage is gender neutral. I wish the UK would do the same thing here for CIVIL marriages.
I don’t give a s**t what the straights “support”. It’s my bloody right to have equal rights.
It’s time. Kudos to New England and Iowa for supporting marriage equality and fairness.
Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA
Kudos to civil marriage.
I cannot but supress a wry smile that 4% of men approached “admitted” to having had a gay experience.
What’s the oldie about the difference between a straight guy and a gay guy is 4 pints of lager?
4% my a–e!
I think the crux of the problem with the image of “Civil Partnerships” within the gay community, and society at large, is the clumsy unwieldy name which is different from the term “marriage” creating a perception that it is not quite equal to marriage even though the rights are the same. As others have commented marriage, has a religious connotation which is largely irelevant to the vast majority of us (and indeed to most hetero couples). So surely the solution is to retain marriage as a term for those who are religiously inclined and want to marry in a church (which means that until churches accept gay marriage this will largely be for heterosexual couples except for a few faiths like the Quakers) and create a new term say Civil Union for couples – straight and gay – who marry in a registry office or other non-religious ceremony.
civil unions and civil partnerships both have the same number of syllables…at least the way i say it…if your gonna change it to something else i say change it to marriage…marriage was a civil institution under various names before any of the religious lot hijacked the term
if they want to have their own word for marriage let them find a new word for it….they hijacked a term and now claim its theirs…well it isn’t and people should know that…there should be more in the media about the history and origins of civil marriages and their previous alternative names and formats to educate people about that fact
religious people cannot be allowed to lie about their ownership of an institution in such a way and it should be the medias duty to scrutinise those lies
marriage is our term…NOT the other way round
I’m glad somebody has already stepped in to point out that marriage is definitely not a religious institution. The fact that priests can officiate at a wedding doesn’t mean the whole institution is religious. It has very concrete civil rights and obligations attached to it that are not enforced by the Church. When you want to get a divorce, you don’t speak to a priest. The religious ceremony is just the cream on the top and a lot of people avoid it and have marriages that are just as valid and binding without ever seeing the inside of a church.
If the state is to regulate people’s unions, there is no argument for keeping straights and gays in different boxes.
I can’t wait for this Civil Partnership non-sense to be out of the way and for the institution of marriage to be gender-neutral in this country.
Also: a lot of priests wouldn’t have a problem marrying a gay couple if the Government hadn’t gone completely out of it’s area of competence to say that civil partnerships could not be officiated in religious venues.
I think this constant tiptoeing around religious people so that they don’t get offended is ludicrous when they have no qualms offending the gay community, calling us all sorts of names.
I say we should take back the institution they have hijacked.
Yup yup, I’m trying to pronounce partnership in 2 sillables, all I get is par’n'ship.
“I think this constant tiptoeing around religious people so that they don’t get offended is ludicrous when they have no qualms offending the gay community, calling us all sorts of names.
I say we should take back the institution they have hijacked. ”
“Yup yup, I’m trying to pronounce partnership in 2 sillables, all I get is par’n'ship.”
thats why both words “unions” and “partnerships” aren’t acceptable….they’re both clumsy aint they….marriage is much better and fitting for a civil institution…after all the institution was man made originally not a religious thing :)
Yes Indeed, I want To be Married to my Partner. We are only Civil Partners since July 2006. We faced the Registrar together and made the same vows as in a marrage. We had celibrations and a wedding cake. We are photographed cutting the cake together. Our wedding party was held in the South Western Hotel Southampton, in the same room the 1912 Titanic Passengers left from, to board that tragic Liner for New York. Our Partnership will last because our Love will last and enjure.
1) Agree with comments above about marriage NOT being a religious thing, just hijacked by religions
2) Does it say anywhere if the respondents to the survey were all straight? The results might include gay people too- although if so, that 4% figure is very low!
Now just a cotton-pickin’ minute here, friends Romans and whatever? Do not forget or forsake the ‘GAY CHRISTIANS’ there are plenty of us around (we filled the Albert Hall for a ‘Hymn sing- in.’) I mentioned that my Partner and I faced the Registrar, well, we would rather have faced our Church Minister for our union. The Minister did bless our Partnership privatley, just before our ceremoney. Many of our Church friends attended our wedding.
This constant tiptoeing round religious people is just twaddle. There are bills here in the US where the religious idiots are demanding that there be a clause to make it clear that churches are not required to marry same-sex couples. It just shows that these people are IDIOTS. It is a given from separation of church and state that churches can marry whomever they wish and send the rest elsewhere.
Marriage, before the Church got its paws on it, was a contract between two people, or – more like – two families.
People from different religions could marry for secular purposes.
It’s just that (as in every secular ceremony) the Church and religion wheedled themselves in, as it gives thempower
And it’s 10 per cent of the population are gay, Stonewall, not 6 per cent, making it 1 in 10 not 1 in 15.
There we go again on this semantics argument, is it? isn’t it? Who gives a flying toss as long as everyone gets the same deal. Call it “Lifelong shagging certificate” if it makes it easier.
An American chap mentioned on here a while back a really good concept. Basically, for legal purposes, EVERYONE who entered into a partnership, be it a church marriage, Registry office marriage or civil partnership would be declared in a “legal partnership” ceremony. That would then be considered a binding legal marriage. If others wish to do it in a church or bungee off a bridge, that is entirely up to them, but it has no legal standing.
If many are not willing for homosexuals to be married, turn the argument on its head and ensure that everyone has to comply with a legal ceremony. The bottom line is that way, everyone gets the same deal, and all the religious nuts cannot complain we are “stealing” their idea.
People are missing the obvious here……. THE CHURCH DON’T WANT US!
And after the crimes and the shite they’ve promoted (and are still promoting!) against us, why would anyone want anything to do with them?
If someone really is a gay Christian, then fair enough give special rights for ministers (who are willing) to bless the civil ceremonies or something…..but leave the actual churches and institutions out of it; they don’t want us, and as far as I’m concerned they can go and swivel aswell!
I’m not sure if these numbers are true, as Eurobarometer always shows much lower numbers for UK, below 50%…
As a gay man, I don’t want ‘special rights’ – I want equal rights! Those that claim to defend ‘traditional marriage’ don’t quite get the point, marriage is a legal term and legal terms change over time – so has religious marriage, as a woman used to be either the property of her father or her husband. As far as the churches are concerned, it should be up to them whether or not to allow the ceremony or blessing of a union to take place there, not the government’s. My partner didn’t get down on one knee, ring in hand, and ask me to ‘civil partnership’ him. We were told recently in the registry office of the various places we WERE allowed to hold the ceremony in, which is rediculous because we should be allowed to hold it in any venue that agrees to.
Typically Summerskill….quite breath taking when he states that teaching that gay and straight relationships are equal. They are? Then why aren’t gays allowed to marry, all things being equal? He’s another one in denial.
Monkeychops, you’re dead wrong. Civil marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious marriage and religion never has and never will OWN marriage. The two are totally different models. The secular state issues marriage licences, NOT religious cults. If people want a religious marriage, let the cults issue them instead but don’t trample down on my right to have a civil marriage by choice. In France, religious cults only solemnise marriages, the civil ceremony is the binding one and solemnisation of the marriage in a religious edifice isn’t mandatory. The rest of the civilised world should follow suit. Civil Partnerships, PACS, Domestic Partnerships and all other non-marriage unions will NEVER be the universal standard and they have no portability. Seven countries and several states in America have abolished them, proof enough they’re not equal.
There are a few GLBT opponents of marriage as an institution and I agree with some of their criticisms, except the idiocy that it ‘belongs’ to the cults and the idea that second class arrangements are ‘good enough’. The only thing the cults own are the patents on sloth, silliness, gluttony, misogyny, homohating, greed, ignorance and superstition. And second class is second class. Full marriage equality is the gold standard.
In the real world marriage, including same sex marriage is a flawed and imperfect institution because of patriarchal and cult influences. But in the real world, the right-now world, it’s wrong to oppose the fight to protect and expand same sex marriage simply because it’s a very imperfect institution. Marriage evolved as a way to protect men’s private ownership and insure the labor of women and children.
The leftist view of marriage is that the state should have minimal interest in partnering except for defending the rights of women and the welfare of children. And that religious cults should be banned from any sort of interference in partnering; it’s up to partners to call the shots and the only other interested party is the state which has an interest in protecting women and children. Everyone, partnered or not, gay or straight, should have the same rights, tax privileges and etc.
Partnering arrangements should be easy to get in and out of. While people should be held strictly accountable for the welfare of children in their care, society has to accept ultimate responsibly for their welfare. Part of that is mandatory training in parenting skills. Another is to encourage everyone to parent all children. Society should insure that all children have decent housing, good medical care and good nutrition.
Sooner or later these kinds of revolutionary social goals will be the norm. In the meantime if GLBT folks want to get married most of us will continue to encourage and fight for them just as we fight for all the parts of our agenda and all the segments of our communities.