What she should do is get rid of the “separate but equal” institution of “civil partnership”, and outlaw discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity of the marriage institution. Any other offer is just window dressing.
… but that would be a too “radical” and controversial manouvre from the viewpoint of their political base … Will they commit political suicide? We shall see…
More like they’ll just window dress the actual status quo to appease gay naivety …
It will be great when we have legal equality sorted and we can turn more energy towards initiatives to challenge homophobia in general ans support victims of discrimination.
So, will I have to get ‘married’ even though I am in a civil partnership?
Note the mealy-mouthed words that Summerskill on behalf of Stonewall uses to welcome the gay marriage proposals (if that is what they are) using the words “the legal form of marriage” as if that is all that it is; compare that to his warm and unqualified welcome of religious civil partnership ceremonies.
So it’s just maybe marriage equality in another four years time .
I’m not impressed by the uncertainty and the propsed timescale at all.
Compared to full civil marriage equality religious Civil Partnerships are of footlingly small interest to me and I imagine to the majority of same sex couples.
Too many options, like the menu in a cheap restaurant.
Have civil unions regardless of sex; that IMHO is the only way to move forward.
If afterwards some choose to go onwards and have their union blessed by the cult of their choice (or one that would choose them) then so be it.
ps @ GG you are not the only one confused!
That should have read “proposed timescale”
thank goodness we have one proper gay rights campaigner in peter thatchell. unlike that traitor summerskill now deciding to jump on the bandwagon.
This is welcome news. The fact that Lynne Featherstone is about to announce a proposal to end the ban on same-sex marriage at the same as announcing religious ceremonies for CPs, coming from a top government official is extremely encouraging indeed. Its going to come, sooner rather than later I think. If its not, I don’t think Featherstone would be announcing such a proposal.
Why I wonder couldn’t we have gone down the same road as the Spanish – marriage for everyone; whether that be in a church or at the local town hall.
Paul, the answer is: Because the actual hand of social and political cards have consistently blocked its inception. The people in power right now have time and again blocked equality, now they claim they’ll set us free. Are they having a magical and sudden change of hearts? We shall see. From my point of biew, this looks like just another window dressing exercise from the Tories, and as moot as the big society con plan they’re trying to implement. Big society, big wash of hands, big help to help yourself … big social workers working for free … big elephant in the room. Should politicians get paid for doing a job? That’s the question we should be asking…
If the government has committed to do this by 2015 that would be brilliant
End of this year would be so much more brilliant.
whats with the bloody timeframe? remove gender language from current laws for both marriage and civil partnership. ten minutes. sorted.
I’m looking forward to Thursday! Where’s the leak come from?
“urged the government not to forget about gay civil marriage.”
Forget the “civil” part – if we’re allowing religious CP then it would be pretty daft not to allow religious marriages! Don’t forget the Quakers want to do marriages NOT CPs…
“No religious service is to be used while the civil partnership registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil partnership document”
I wonder if anybody knows what this line is all about in the CP act…does it mean that the registrar will have to sit in another room while the CP religious ceremony takes place…I’m confuseed by this line, doesn’t the service take place first and then you go off to sign a register somewhere else anyway?
“The government will also look at giving straight couples the right to have civil partnerships, ”
I think there is already a French EU petition against the UK on something like this ???? ie UK recognising gay French PACS couples only and refusing to recognise straight ones..I guess it’s not quite the same
The Liberal Democrats are the only major party with policy to support marriage regardless of gender, along with civil partnerships regardless of gender, and the ability to convert one to the other without divorce / annulment.
I expect that’s what Lynne Featherstone, as a Liberal Democrat MP, will be pushing for. Whether or not she can achieve that remains to be seen, but I am optimistic.
“An unjust law is (one that a) majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. … “Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up there privileges voluntarily.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. in a letter from a Birmingham jail.
“A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?”
Pavlos – are you seriously putting that forward as an argument as an argument for marriage?