Comments on: Lords back religious civil partnerships for gay couples

By: flapjack

flapjack — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:04:20 +0000

In principle it’s a good thing that there’s no institutionalised discrimination.
In practice I wouldn’t like my gay wedding ruined by some passive aggressive preacher snarling my wedding vows through clenched teeth whilst staring daggers at me the whole time. It would be like getting married by the Rev. Bernice Woodall from “The League of Gentlemen”!
As they say you can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
In some ways it’s good to know where you stand with homophobes in service industries so they don’t get your business (plus you don’t end up paying them for shoddy customer service).
Just playing devil’s advocate here.

By: jako

jako — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:14:18 +0000

My thanks to many of the above posters for the clarity they have written on this very important step forward. We are not quite there yet but for my generation,(60 plus), it is so satisfying to read articulate individuals expressing such progressive thinking.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:06:52 +0000

Daily Telegraph: Clergy could be sued if they refuse to carry out ‘gay marriages’, traditionalists fear

By: Confused

Confused — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:46:59 +0000

Well I’m glad Lord Waheed alli has put this forward and also glad that there is a step in the right direction, however, painfully slow it all seems. Afer a rather disappointing response from this Lord when I asked him what they were doing to get some recognition of our CP abroad then this is at least something. I don’t quite understand why some people on this forum will think we will get more recognition abroad as gay married couples, do they have proof of this. Does anybody know where the British CP is recognised at the moment or if we suddenly changed it to a gay marriage where it would be recognised. Some countries don’t recognise gay marriage but recognise civil union, like the uk, they downgrade it to a CP. It’s great to have a marriage but even greater to have rights rather than no rights and my fear is that we don’t know what the impact of concerting it to a marriage has abroad, we don’t even know what the current sitution is – I’m British , have a CP but don’t live in the UK. I live in a different country where they only have civil unions…Will the government start looking at the international aspect of gay marriages and CPs and take it a bit more seriously!

By: dave

dave — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:07:15 +0000

"Name and shame all the institutionalised homophobics that voted against bill—no more than the 3 given names??" Division on Amendment 53

By: Micael

Micael — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:35:25 +0000

All civil contracts should be supported in the form of civil marriage for gay people – religious for those who want it.

By: Dionysian

Dionysian — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:34:39 +0000

I wanted to say something first, but my gorgeous fiance beat me to it because I got stuck at work (from wherein I don’t like to post due to the IT Gestapo, though I –occasionally– read).

We aren’t gonna get hitched until we have the FULL rights and recognition of a hetero couple. I am worried that a Civil P would mean we wouldn’t be able to ‘upgrade’ to the full monty should it come to pass without divorcing first. So we wait. I still wear a ring. As does he.

I was at a pension seminar today where they told me he can have equal status for everything, so things are coming along. But we are still a long way away.

Why not just say that Civil Partnership is for ppl who do it in a Registry Office and Marriage is that Church thang? I’d love to use a Quaker hall to hold my Reception, and they seem to have no problem with either of us. We didn’t burst into flames when we kissed in the hall.

I wouldn’t want to tie the knot (a Catholic reference, btw) in a place where they didn’t feel comfortable, anyway.

Raven: Still love you. Let them publish and be damned.

By: Zeke

Zeke — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:19:59 +0000

The Grinch, there is a big difference between not being allowed to marry and not choosing to marry. Of course there are gay people who don’t, and won’t, want to get married. There are some who will prefer Civil Partnerships. Regardless of where you stand on the issue there is no reason to not support full and equal access for ALL to ALL CIVIL institutions.

My frustration, as stated above, is not that progress is not being made, it certainly is being made. It’s not that progress isn’t moving quickly, it certainly is moving quickly. My concern and frustration is how many gay people are deluding themselves into believing that with Civil Partnerships, we’ve arrived, equality has been achieved, pack it up boys the fight is over. I fear that the more people become satisfied with second class status the harder it will be and the longer it will take to achieve TRUE equality.

I applaud England’s amazing moves forward toward LGBT equality but at the same time I refuse to be satisfied until true equality is achieved. We need a little less back patting and a little more ass kicking if we ever hope to get there.

By: Raven

Raven — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:25:24 +0000

So at the end of all this I am still denied the right to marry my fiance and religious organisations still have special dispensation to discriminate me purely based on the fact the we are both guys. So much for progess. Big whoop.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:01:56 +0000

The Grinch, thanks for that. Civil marriage is performed a lot more in Canada than religious marriage, yet it was able to get full marriage equality passed.

This is from Peter Tatchell…I was right about the poll too.

Religious civil partnerships backed by Lords

Ban on church civil partnerships voted down by House of Lords

Next battle: End the ban on same-sex civil marriage

London – 3 March 2010

Last night’s vote by the House of Lords to end the ban on religious civil partnerships is “another advance for gay equality and religious freedom,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of the LGBT rights group OutRage!

“Allowing faith organisations to make their own decisions on whether to conduct same-sex civil partnerships is the democratic and decent thing to do.

“By banning religious civil partnerships, the current law is denying religious bodies the right to treat gay couples equally. It is forcing them to discriminate, even when many of them do not want to.

“The Quakers, Unitarians, Metropolitan Community Church and liberal synagogues wish to conduct civil partnership ceremonies and should be allowed to do so.

“Following a change in the law, we expect civil partnerships will be conducted by gay-affirmative religions, including the Unitarians and Quakers, and some Anglican churches and liberal synagogues.

“Our next goal is to secure marriage equality, to end the prohibition on lesbian and gay couples having a civil marriage in a registry office. Already, 61% of the British public believe that same-sex couples should be able to have a civil marriage, according to an opinion poll conducted by Populus and published by The Times in June last year.

See here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6586450.ece

“The gay rights group OutRage! is planning to challenge the bans on same-sex civil marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships in the European Court of Human Rights. Our aim is full equality for homosexual and heterosexual couples. We hope to file an appeal to the European Court by summer of this year. Already, four couples have agreed to join the legal challenge.

“If we win in the European Court of Human Rights, the government will be required to change the law to allow gay partners to have a civil marriage and to allow heterosexual couples to have a civil partnership. It will ensure, at last, full equality in the laws governing relationship recognition and rights.

“Last month, the Greens became the first and and only political party in Britain to officially support an end to the ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship. Their Spring party conference voted almost unanimously to end the prohibition on religious civil partnerships.

“I may disagree with religion and want a separation of religion from the state, but I still object to religious same-sex couples being denied the option of having a civil partnership in their place of worship. If that is what they want, it is up to them. Exclusions based on faith or sexuality are wrong,” said Mr Tatchell.

Further information: Peter Tatchell 0207 403 1790

By: The Grinch

The Grinch — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:57:08 +0000

Part of the issue Robert, and take a review of some of the comments here as proof, is that many gays see no value in marriage based on the traditional model of construct here where it is sanctified by a Church. That could explain the difference with Spain and Ireland where civil ceremonies for straights are much less prevalent then here. I remember, but don’t agree with, the sentiment at the time of CP’s being debated was that our community had a unique and preferential way of defining our relationships separate from the State and Church links of traditional marriage and that was a good thing. I’m with you absolutely though, we need to make more noise and push for full marriage equality – separate is never really equal.

By: zazou

zazou — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:47:06 +0000

bravo

By: Pete & Michael

Pete & Michael — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:44:04 +0000

From Bishop of Bradford, Quote ” since civil partnerships were introduced, that they are not the same as marriage”, and if the c of e church is receiving money from English Heritage for maintaining it’s churches why do we all have to pay for it in our taxes? Bring on full Marriage Equality we say!

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:11:05 +0000

The Grinch, thank you. I’m not saying I don’t want people to have civil partnerships, I do for those who want them, both gay and straight, but we should and must have the choice to marry for those of us who want to. That’s all I’m saying. I agree with everything else you say on the subject but compared to the other eight countries who have gone that extra step, I still think we should be pushing a lot harder to make it happen. The problem I see is a lot of apathy among my fellow gay brothers and sisters and there is NO national movement to bring about that change for us and getting our straight allies on board. I don’t understand it. If it weren’t for activism and a strong push for full equality, without exception, none of those eight countries would have won theirs. I don’t see the zeal in our own country, many of us have become indifferent and that’s not a good thing. I don’t hear any of our politicians voicing support unlike other countries. Even in Ireland, you’ll find a far more vocal group supporting full marriage equality, we don’t have that here yet, unfortunately and I don’t see why we shouldn’t. I really don’t see this as a “big ship to turn around” since all that needs to be done is to change two words, i.e. civil partnerships into one…”marriage”. There would be no need for prolonged debate either since this has already been done for civil partnerships. Heaven knows, we have enough class structure without creating another one which civil partnerships have already done. Its absurd to keep us separate from the rest of straight society, hardly integration but more about segregation to satisfy the bigotry of the relgious cults. In a poll I once read on here, it was estimated that 60% of the British public don’t have a problem with marriage equality. I don’t understand why our politicians would be so dead set against it if those numbers are to be believed. If Spain, Portugal and Belgium can do it, heavily catholic countries, there is absolutely no reason or excuse why we can’t.

By: Dennis H

Dennis H — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:04:49 +0000

Name and shame all the institutionalised homophobics that voted against bill—no more than the 3 given names??

By: Abi1975

Abi1975 — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:58:50 +0000

I we start to get churches doing CPs it will totally undermine their positions so let them carry on I say. After all the C of E will no doubt jump at the chance of making a extra quid off us. Its at that point we should challenge the rights they have to discriminate us including marriage equality.

We should think of this as our Trojan horse waiting to be brought inside the city of Troy.

By: barry

barry — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:21:02 +0000

Grinch (32) – how I love the voice of reason. Rome wasn’t built in a day…and we, the gay movement represented by people who are in a position to effect change, have come a long, long way.

Think of the civil rights movement worldwide and it’s easy to see that we are part of a huge change for the better and an acceptance of both gay and straight partners in loving relationships has only just begun.

By: The Grinch

The Grinch — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:08:04 +0000

Robert while I agree with most everything you say, especially the point that civil partnerships are not equal to marriages in terms of international standing I would point out a few things. The move to full equality for our relationships is clearly progressing – less then a decade ago it would not have been possible for my American partner and I to have permanent status in the UK based solely on our relationship which is thanks to Civil Partnerships. We now have this incremental step of allowing religious content and CP’s to take place in some churches. The challenge for same sex couples is to continue to push our elected representatives, the European Union, Stonewall (!) and the courts to move us to full marriage status. So I for one see this as a positive step toward equality and take some comfort that it was the usually conservative House of Lords that embraced the change. Clearly this issue is a big ship to turn around, and unlike South Africa, we have more pushing to do…keep the faith.

By: barry

barry — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:04:41 +0000

Barrington (No 2), don’t be shy – come our and fight your corner, dear boy; some of these awful pervies are saying rude things about you. Put your gloves on, dear, and fight for what you think is right. After all, anyone can rant and be rude about other people, but just try justifying your statements and then we can all see what you’re relly made of.
1 – 2 – 3 – jump in, there’s a dear!

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:56:40 +0000

Zeke, I have to agree with you. My partner and I wanted to get married so we had to leave and go to Toronto. When we returned home, the local registrar told me that our marriage isn’t recognised as such and that it would only be treated as a civil partnership which it clearly isn’t. Its really disgusting. We think the reason why our government, both this one and the next tory government won’t recognise it for what it is is that it will open the gate to full marriage, something neither wants to do let alone consider. We’re not that progressive as some like to think we are. If we were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Look at all of the various forms of legal unions for gay couples across the EU. That proves that they, including civil partnerships, are definitely not equal. Opening marriage to us would get rid of that ridiculous hodge podge of varying forms of inequality across the entire EU altogether. Its a simple thing yet they make it so difficult. The bottom line of course is not offending the religious cults that have absolutely NOTHING to do with civil marriage, which is all we’re demanding, and rightly so. My fellow British gay compatriots are in denial when they claim that civil partnerships are identical and just as good as marriage. They fail to see the larger picture and the implications. A very insular way of thinking but that’s nothing new to our culture, we often think we’re the only ones who are right to the exclusion of others. Its like burying one’s head in the sand and pretending things are just fine as they are, why rock the boat? They just don’t get it unlike eight other countries that have surpassed us, a trend that will grow I think while we languish and accept being treated differently and separately as if we are pariahs. I never believed in racial segregation and this is tantamount to just that under a different guise. How could anyone consider that to be full equality? Its mind-boggling. To think we have an organisation that claims to represent all of us yet dismisses any notion of full marriage equality. It doesn’t desever to bear the name of Stonewall and clearly has no idea what Stonewall was all about. Isn’t it ironic that in South Africa, a country that has gone through all kinds of discrimination and apartheid the most insidious of all, it took a mostly all white Supreme Court to rule that gay people should be accorded the same rights as straights when they allowed their own gay people to marry? We should be ashamed of ourselves in the UK.