Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Labour and Tory gay groups support religious civil partnerships

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. And why are none of these groups campaigning for GAY MARRIAGE?
    Civil Partnerships are all very well and good, but they’re not marriage. I’d like to get MARRIED someday, not Civil Partnership’d.

  2. Simon Murphy 1 Mar 2010, 6:04pm

    Oh for goodness sake.

    Are these groups in favour of marriage equality.

    And if not then why not?

    I don’t want to get CP’d in a church. I don’t require some cult to acknowledge my relationship.

    I do not want to be denied access to the contract of civil marriage because of my sexual orientation.

    These Labour and Tory gay groups should be spending their time on campaigning for legal equality.

  3. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

    Much that I find this whole CP/Marriage trivial, it also irks me that people really can’t do the right thing and just call it marriage, with no ambiguity. “We are a married couple” – ’nuff said.

  4. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed here about marriage and civil partnerships. Although we are atheists, my partner – of 45 years – and I tend to think that religious faith is a mental illness, we still support the wishes of those who want to have a religious input into their marriage/civil partnership.
    It will be in interesting to see, when this amendment is introduced into the Lords, how the Bigot of Winchester and the Archbigot of York will respond to it.

  5. Can anyone explain to me: the ceremony itself is not the legally binding part so why does the law have to change to allow a same sex couple to take part in a ceremony inside a religious building before they sign the register? I don’t understand why this is not already at the discretion of the religious establishment as it is with hetero marriages.

  6. “Religious Civil Partnership”?

    Am I the only person who sees the oxymoronic irony of this term?

    Perhaps if one says “Religious Civil Marriage” the irony will become more obvious. This is a glaring display that NO ONE sees Civil Partnerships as the same as Marriage.

    “Civil Partnership” literally means “Legally recognized flatmates”, NOTHING more.

    I’m always astonished when I hear gay people claim that Civil Partnerships, if they just had the religious option, would mean total equality for gay people. Yeah, except for the fact that it is being legally separated for the very purpose of clearly defining Marriage as culturally, legally and socially superior to Civil Partnerships. So basically they are exactly the same only one is considerably inferior, in every way, to the other.

  7. Zeke: I recognise your take on there having to be some religious connotation in all of this, and I fully agree that marriage should fundamentally be a non-religious process, but people can always opt for doing it “In the eyes of God”, should they so wish.

    However, Civil Partnerships *are* legally identical to marriages bar two minor details, so please stop huffing and puffing about the blatant inequality of it all. I am in a Civil Partnership, and if nothing else, you are insulting not only myself and my partner, but everyone else that has made the same commitment to spend their lives together in whatever the law currently allows, by degrading and denying us that which most people take for granted and equating us to “Legally recognised flatmates” because it doesn’t fit with your right-on PC gay rights ethics.

    Well all I can say is go f_ck yourself, you self-righteous, pompous little sh!tbag.

  8. Pumpkin Pie 2 Mar 2010, 5:34am

    I am in awe at how utterly tame and inconsequential this is. Congratulations on dressing up your slur against gay rights, Labour and Tories. How about something useful next time?

    I’m sure this is great news for people who were planning on getting a CP and wanted a nice, traditional church do. But it’s still a slap in the face compared to what the government should have been doing.

  9. Tim Hopkins 2 Mar 2010, 10:07am

    RobN, personal abuse doesn’t help your case at all.

    Having worked very closely with the Scottish Govt in 2004 to ensure that the Scottish parts of the CP Act replicated the effects of marriage law as exactly as possible, I’m as aware as anyone of how closely the legal provisions of CP mirror marriage. I also know where the remaining differences are and why.

    But of course the main reason there was a huge 430 page Act of Parliament to replicate existing marriage law under a different name was to deny us actual marriage, because some churches and other people thought we didn’t deserve that.

    You and some others are fully happy with their CPs – and that’s great. But some others, including couples in CPs, are not fully happy. They think they should have the right to get married, rather than “married”.

    It’s all about choices – why should those who are happy with their CP get to deny others who want to marry?

    Opening both CP and marriage to all couples regardless of gender is the equitable solution, and that’s what the Equality Network here in Scotland is working towards.

    The Stonewall / Lord Alli amendment goes one step towards equality, but it is not equality.

  10. Tim Hopkins, I fully appreciate the reasons behind the whole thing, and I do recognise some want a change, but I’m afraid some people will never be happy with their lot.

    There are many people that took Civil Partnerships for what they think is the right reasons, and however flawed the whole system is, that does not give people the right to go around calling us “Legally recognised flatmates” – and I consider THAT to be personal abuse, so I am merely replying in kind.

  11. I get the feeling from some here, that they would simply rather have no rights at all unless they only have full rights. No it’s not perfect but it is progressing and yes there’s a lot of work to be done. I think any support from all corners is good news and something to be positive about. We are in danger of becoming ‘those people that just keep whinging’ rather than ‘ oh yeah, they do should have the rights, lets support them’.

    Anything that helps us get full rights is welcome.

  12. useless all of them

  13. Dave Page 2 Mar 2010, 5:19pm

    Shame that “LGBT Labour” and “LGBTory” (both seperate organisations with no influence in their parties) can’t lobby Labour and Tory MPs to support full equal marriage. Nick Clegg, leader of the Lib Dems, has been outspoken on this cause for some time.

    http://campaigns.libdems.org.uk/marriagewithoutborders

  14. why not have marriage so those that want it can marry and then that’s it! why not tell the religious loonies and the homophobes to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine?

  15. “And why are none of these groups campaigning for GAY MARRIAGE?”

    Because they are out of touch with what real gay people want.

    Labour and Tory do not support marriage equality.

    If you want marriage equality you need to elect a Lib Dem government as they are the only major party in favour.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all