Reader comments · Gay civil partnerships approved for parliament · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay civil partnerships approved for parliament

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. OK so next lets let Everyone get married, full stop! Lets see these spineless cretins vote that one in.

  2. Simon Murphy 16 Feb 2010, 3:27pm

    Absurd and pathetic.

    So now gay and lesbian people will be able to register their 2nd class relationships in parliament.

    Meanwhile not a single same sex couple anywhere in the country is allowed to enter a civil marriage.

    It would be funny if it wasn’t so insulting.

    Enough with crap like opening Westminster for discriminatory ceremonies; or allowing religious cults to perform CP’s.

    The only thing I am interested in seeing is same sex couples being allowed to get a civil marriage. And opposite sex couples being allowed to get a CP.

  3. Christine Rourke 16 Feb 2010, 3:44pm

    Well, whoopie feckin’ do….!


  4. I thought I was going to be alone in my opinion. Seems not. Just more MP’s feathering their own nests. Try doing something useful and equalising marriage instead of this piddling round the edge of a problem.

  5. I agree with all of you. We’re supposed to be jumping up and down for joy over this? Why would any sane person rejoice in being to form a civil partnership that isn’t even recognised as a marriage? The power that be thinks this is about equality, as does StonewallUK no doubt. I’m sick of the cowards in both parties.

  6. It seems useless to me. And ridiculous.
    Let everyone marry instead of thinking about things like segregated unions in parliament!
    It’s crazy… it seems like Uk is looking at everything but the only thing that would mean full equality: inclusion in marriage laws. Uk is a great country, it even lets same-sex couples adopt children and procreate by ivf… I cannot understand why it doesn’t let gays and lesbians marry.

  7. Mark: “I cannot understand why it doesn’t let gays and lesbians marry.”

    It’s obvious. Although Marriage and CP are effectively the same thing, the Church likes to think they hold the patent on marriage.
    Although Parliament don’t like to admit it, both the Church of England and the Catholic church can still throw their weight about if they need to and have a lot of powerful friends. Oh, and God. ;)

    The government just don’t want to be seen pissing the Church off, so they’ve done as much as they can without treading on their toes and actually *calling* it marriage.

    The Government hold all religions at arm’s length, including Muslims and Jews, because they are all sleeping tigers, and woe betide some tactless MP that decides to try and pull their tail.

  8. RobN… I don’t see Marriage and Partnership as effectively the same thing: they give the same legal consequences but they’re two different forms of recognition, governed by two separate pieces of legislation. Being married, a husband it’s not the same as being partnered, a civil partner… it sounds a lot different to me. Access to Civil Marriage is not a religious issue, it’s a legal, social equality issue.

  9. Mark: You can get married in a registry office, can you not? That is a secular event, but is completely equitable with a church wedding.

    Apart from two insignificant points, legally, THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CP AND MARRIAGE! I really wish people would stop using their opinions and actually look it up if they don’t know.

    It really is all down to a name. That is all.

  10. Dear RobN, the way we name things matter. Treating gays and lesbians as unworthy of a real marriage, worthy only of a marriage that is not a marriage, is marking them as inferior human beings. Exactly as treating blacks as unworthy of a real marriage, worthy only of a marriage that is not a marriage, would be marking blacks as inferior human beings. The only way to eliminate discrimination is to eliminate discrimination; if you preserve it and add a legal ghetto for the discriminated people you’re segregating instead of treating everybody equally as they deserve, you’re humiliating the people that are discriminated against, you’re promoting a “we hetero – you gays” way of thinking instead of a “we human beings” way of thinking. It’s really absourd that UK is not letting gays and lesbians have a civil marriage. I agree with Peter Tatchell statements: It’s sexual apartheid, it’s institutional homophobia.

  11. Mark: You asked the question. I, in my best understanding of the situation, answered it. Frankly, your personal opinions and perspective do not change the facts a tinker’s damn.

    It seems to me you already knew the answer, but like so many on here, are unwilling to accept it, so you rant on about apartheid and any old bollocks that will make you look hard done by. Oh, and ever since Stephen Lawrence, everyone has to wheel out the cliché of sticking “institutional” as a prefix to any subject they feel aggrieved by. Well I’ll tell you something, sunshine. Seems to me you are suffering from “Institutional f_cking persecution complex”.

  12. RobN… I didn’t ask anything. I simply said that a situation in which politicians, like Uk ones, think about “making ceremonies possible in parliament” and not about the only thing that would mean equality (the end of anti-gay discrimination in marriage laws) is not understandable… is completely absurd, and ridiculous too. It’s even more absurd and ridiculous if you consider the fact that in Uk same-sex couples are already considered fit to adopt and are allowed to procreate via ivf. I can imagine that you’re not finding out a valid argument agains the things I wrote in my last comment… in fact there isn’t… so I understand your frustration. Bye

  13. MArk: I stated that in my first comment. The reason the government refuses to equate CP and marriage, which are to all intents and purposes identical except in name, is because they don’t want to cross swords with the Church. Historically Parliament and the Church have ties going way back, and there is an unwritten rule that they don’t tread on each others toes.

    I am a ‘married’ man, as far as I am concerned, even if the law chooses to call my relationship something else for the sake of expediency. Until such time as the Government and Church break ties, I doubt you will ever see any change.

  14. RobN… we’re talking about civil marriage. It’s a duty of every decent, respectable government and parliament to reafferm its right to legislate on secular things like civil marriage finding guidance in the basic principles of individual liberty, equality and not in those sick interferences or in ancient prejudices. It’s not ‘crossing the swords’ with one or more churches, it’s doing what it must do if it wants to be credible when it talks about non-discrimination, respect. You can say you’re married as much as you want, you can even believe you’re married, but that doesn’t make it true unfortunately. Because in the Uk if you’re attracted by persons of the same sex you cannot marry the person you love; as everywhere else in the world, this situation can change only if lgbt groups, supported by every other lgbt-friengly citizen, fight the status quo demanding real equality.

  15. Mark: “It’s a duty of every decent, respectable government…”

    Since when did we ever have one of those? Labour have sold this country down the river, and the Tories are not likely to do any better. Even the EU refuse to interfere with these matters.

    Like my Mum used to tell me, “What you want and what you get are two different things”.

  16. Gay activist Paul Mitchell 18 Feb 2010, 12:06pm

    A step in the right direction – yet SO FAR to go yet!!!!!!

  17. Paul Mitchell: “A step in the right direction”

    What step? All they’ve done is side-step the issue.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.