Reader comments · Sixth anniversary of the first civil partnerships celebrated today · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Sixth anniversary of the first civil partnerships celebrated today

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Here’s to 2012 – and marriage equality by summer 2012.

    CP’s were a bad idea from the beginning creating a 2 tier recognition or relationships and cementing the position of same sex couples as 2nd class citizens. Granted they sorted out a lot of problems for those who needed an urgent solution, but after CP’s were introduced the campaign for equality should have continued apace.

    Callmedave Cameron and the LibDems support marriage equality, so we should not accept their arbitrary date of 2015 for equality.

    Marriage Equality by summer 2012.

    No excuses are acceptable.

    1. Hear hear!

      One thing that civil partnerships have achieved is to make LGBT relationships more visible. I think they are a stepping-stone to full marriage equality, but we need full marriage equality now. (And the option for opposite-sex partners to have civil partnerships if they want them.)

      I tend to view the civil partnership situation as analogous to the equalisation of the age of consent. There was a big fuss when it went from 21 to 18, but hardly any fuss when it went from 18 to 16. I predict a similar situation with equal marriage.

      1. They were ONLY ever a stepping stone.

        How Stonewall and Labour ever contemplated that CP’s would be adequate is incomprehensible.

        We absolutely must not accept Lynne Featherstone’s assurance of equality by the end of this government in 2015.

        That date (along with the endlessly delayed and completely unnecessary ‘consultation’ on equality) has been selected on purpose so when the next general election is held Callmedave and the Lib Dems can pretend that they ran out of time.

        I want to hear a logical explanation why we cannot be equal in the eyes of the law by summer 2012. That gives the government LOADS of time.

  2. orangegoblin 21 Dec 2011, 10:37am

    We got CPed last week because out adoption is going through soon and we were sick of waiting for the law to get its act together.

    No-one on the day called it a CP – who would it is too cumbersome to say – and I had a pretty good time.

    They had better give us a free certificate swap to a marriage certificate when marriage comes through. I will be incredibly cross if we have to get divorced and remarried.

    1. Congratulations! Good luck with the adoption process. I hope your CP can be recognised simply as a marriage …

    2. Congratulations and every happiness to you and your hubby (I say hubby as I am assuming, for no good reason, you are male but please feel free to insert wife if appropriate)

  3. orangegoblin 21 Dec 2011, 10:41am

    Stonewall have lost touch. I have met with their employees through my work with another charity.

    They are children in sharp suits hoping to become career politicians. I found them so far removed from real people that I was quiet shocked.

    1. orangegoblin 21 Dec 2011, 10:41am

      This was supposed to be to dAVID

      1. I decided not to bother.

        Stonewall are irrelevant and are so out of touch with ordinary LGBT people that those employees you met, will cotton on soon enough that being a member of Stonewall is going to hinder their careers.

        Stonewall no longer has any legitimacy as an equality organisation and it’s entirely its own fault,

        And Ben Summerskilll remains head of Stonewall.

        It just shows the contempt in which Stonewall holds the community it pretends to represent.

    2. orangegoblin 21 Dec 2011, 10:42am

      Also I spelled quite wrong… lol

    3. “career politicians” for which party?

      I always had the impression that Stonewll was another arm of the labour party? BS has strong family background linked to labour…

  4. couragenigeria 21 Dec 2011, 10:51am

    Happy anniversary to all celebrants. Those of you outside Africa and Middle East, please celebrate love. Let those in the oppressed regions see you with pride. One day, we too shall be able to at least hold hand and kiss even behind closed door without fear of intimidation.

  5. The Civil Partnership Act of Segregation – what’s to celebrate?

    1. No-one is celebrating.

      People are simply angry that 6 years after our relationships were declared legally 2nd class, we are still in the same position.

      I wonder if any of the political parties or Stonewall will be moronic enough to mark this as a day to celebrate.

      The day to celebrate was 6 years ago.

      It’s a complete and utter disgrace that 6 years later we are still legally 2nd class.

      1. GingerlyColors 22 Dec 2011, 7:40am

        At least we do have some legal recognition of our relationships although we would like full marriage whereas before 2005 we did not have any status as couples (I am still on the market by the way).
        There are certain issues that are worth discussing.
        In a Civil Partnership a person cannot take on honoury titles – the prime example being David Furnish who is CP-d to Sir Elton John. If Sir Elton John had married a woman she would have been called Lady John. Also who takes on who’s surname. Traditionally women were called ‘Miss’ followed by her father’s surname suggesting that she is still ‘property’ of her father and her hand is available in marriage. After marriage she becomes ‘property’ of her husband and uses his surname, preceeded by ‘Mrs’. When gays are allowed to enter into full marriages do we take on double-barrelled surnames with a hyphen? Answers on a postcard from Holland, Argentina, Spain, anyone?

  6. What a sad start tho :(

  7. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 11:01am

    Well it will be 4 years for myself and my better half on the 29th.

    Much that its nice to have it, we would both much prefer to be married. It somehow feels like we’ve got “Marriage Lite”, a bit like having the demo of the software with the built-in restrictions and all your mates giggling.

    1. GingerlyColors 22 Dec 2011, 7:28am

      Should have done it on the 29th February, 2008 – now that would have made it really special. Leap day is the only day when women can propose to men (for those who are that way inclined). Should there be a special day for men to propose to men? Same for Lesbians.

  8. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 11:45am

    I’m heartily sick of all the Mexican crabs who are probably single putting down CPs, which were a wonderful and timely introduction, solved a lot of discriminatory legal issues for those of us in long term relationships, and gave us an emotional and affirming ceremony to celebrate with friends and family.

    It’s ridiculous to suggest we should have waited another 20 years and gone straight for equal marriage.

    Sure it would be nice to abolish the distinction between CP and straight weddings now that the world has moved on, but don’t underestimate tha value that CP has had for the 100,000 people that have it in the UK.

    1. No-one said that we should have waited for an additional 20 years.

      CP’s were totally insulting and offensive and inadequate in 2005.

      But they were the right thing to do at the time.

      Sadly both Labour and Stonewall foolishly thought that the issue was resolved,

      It was not resolved.

      Same sex couples simply obtained 2nd class legal recognition of their relationships.

      CP’s were only a stepping stone. Segregation was never the destination.

      Civil marriage equality needs to be a reality in this country by summer 2012.

      Any delays means that the government regards us as 2nd class citizens.

      1. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 1:43pm

        The second class status is all in your head. When we did it, we were getting married.

        Sure the distinctions will be phased out now people are used to the idea, but the idea that we are any less married than straight people is inaccurate and preposterous. And your propagation of that idea is just as offensive as when evangelical Christians do it. I wouldnt be surprised if you were one oftheir trolls.

        1. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 1:47pm

          So tell me how you feel when you tick the box on your driving licence or passport application that says “Single”, “Married” “Shacked up with another poof”?

          That to me says it all.

          1. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 1:54pm

            I always tick married. Which we are. A civil partnership is a contract of marriage indistinguishable from straight marriage for legal purposes.

          2. I am married.

            I was married in Canada.

            Why then was my marriage declared invalid in the UK and downgraded to a CP.

            You are not married if you are in a CP.

            You can repeat to yourself that you are married all you like. But in the eyes of the law you are not.

            And I cannot believe how ignorant you sound.

            You are basically telling people that because YOU are happy with CP’s then everyone else should be. That is an appallingly selfish attitude.

          3. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 2:08pm

            dAVID, I don’t believe a word of it, you obviously just made that up about Canada, since it’s the first we’ve heard of it.

          4. Believe what you like.

            You yourself say you are in a CP.

            I don’t believe you.

            I believe that you work for Stonewall and are pretending to be happy with segregation.

            I have NEVER heard any gay person other than the Stonewall morons who are satisfied with the 2nd class citizenship offered by CP segregation.

          5. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 2:19pm

            Then why aren’t you labelling yourself “Happy to be Married”?

          6. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 2:54pm

            Happy to be CP’d “I always tick married. Which we are. A civil partnership is a contract of marriage indistinguishable from straight marriage for legal purposes.”

            You are not. If you tick “Married” you are heterosexual, if you tick “Civil Partnership” you are homosexual.
            What part of that is indistinguishable?
            If that is not blatant segregation, I don’t know what is.

        2. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 2:10pm

          Oh dAVID, now your lying about what I said in my posts. What more evidence does anyone need that your are in fact a troll?

          1. I’m a troll?

            But I’m not the one defending segregation you know.

            That in fact is you.

    2. And ‘Happy to be CPed’.

      It was to benefit people like you that people were willing to settle for 2nd class citizenship in 2005.

      It is in extraordinarily bad taste and truly disrespectful for you to start whining about how ‘ungrateful’ people are to be angry that we are STILL waiting for equality.

      1. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 1:44pm

        Why don’t you try getting a relationship and stop whining?

      2. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 1:50pm

        It wasn’t seen as 2nd class, it was seen as a welcome recognition. You may feel second class, but then that’s your own issue. The move towards removing the distinction to straight relationships is a natural one with time, and has nothing to do with status, which, I repeat, is entirely in your self victimising head.

        1. I don’t feel 2nd class. I am married (in Canada).

          You however are legally married nowhere, but in a sickeningly selfish manner you are telling people that simply because you are happy to be a 2nd class citizen that they too should be happy.

          it was to help idiots like you that people settled for inequality back in 2005. I suppose your complete lack of interest in anyone other than your own sorry hide should be no surprise.

          1. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 2:11pm

            You’re making it up as you go along, and lying about my posts. Obviously your just a troll.

          2. What is Ben Summerskill like as a boss ‘Happy to be CP’ed’?

          3. @Happy to be CP’d

            Congratulations on your CP. I understand that you may well wish it to have full status of marriage and would welcome and encourage full equal marriage, but nonetheless for the purposes of those you are close to and official questions – you perceive yourself to have made the same commitment as is made in marriage. You value your recognition of commitment as being that of marriage. I think that is a wonderful thing and to be celebrated. Of course, it would be much better if legally it was called marriage (and it will be) but that should not mean that anyone demeans your relationship by telling you how to perceive your own relationship. Congratulations and best wishes for the future.

  9. Congratulations to all those who have (or are planning on) celebrating a civil partnership.

    Whilst there is very much an element that they are a stepping stone towards equal marriage – and that this needs to happen soon – there is also an aspect that some people wanted legal recognition of their relationship and commitment, but were unhappy (for whatever reason) with the label marriage. There remain some people who hold this view, and we shouldn’t demean their view by expressing that CPs are a second class recognition of relationships.

    Yes, we want marriage. Yes, many of us celebrate CPs (some of us because it has been the stepping stone bringing us closer to equal marriage, some for other reasons)

    1. CP’s were invented SOLELY to deny same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage.

      A contract designed solely to deny someone access to a different contract (civil marriage) is a 2nd class contract.

      Therefore CP’s are a 2nd class form of legal recognition There is absolutely no debate about that.

      Same sex couples who were unhappy with the label marriage would have been free to NOT get married if equality had been introduced. In exactly the same manner as a straight couple have always been free to not get married if they don’t like the label.

      1. Utterly and totally ridiculous argument that they were solely to deny equality …

        Particularly so when you refer to them as a stepping stone earlier in this thread ,… its either solely a barrier to equality or its a stepping stone to equality – it can not be both, they are mutually exclusive …

        1. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 1:39pm

          Stu: Much that I know you like to pour oil on the waters, I suggest in this case you keep quiet. I for one am *IN* a civil partnership, and although as you point out they are a stepping stone, they are just that. Currently the UK government would prefer we continued to stand in the middle of the river rather than see us on the other side along with everyone else.

          They have been ‘got at’ by the religious right and refuse to get into an out-an-out brawl over the matter, (and that is precisely what will happen) – Civil partnerships should never have been implemented, and the constant bullsh|t flying around about performing same-sex marriages in churches, straights wanting CP’s and governments wanting consultation periods does nothing but muddy the waters and obscure the true objective of complete and absolute marriage equality on legal grounds.

          Numerous bodies continue to wheel out the same old clichés, but when it comes to actually doing anything about it would rather sit on their hands and point out these feeble objections. There is no reason to not give us what we want apart from one simple and rather pointed fact: They are homophobic; they are literally frightened of us, and what we might become if we were to have the same rights as everyone else.

        2. Yes they were invented solely to deny marriage equality,
          After all why else woud Labour invent a brand new contract to legally recognise a relationship, when a perfectly valid contract (civil marriage) already exists.

          CP’s were invented soely to give legal recognition to same sex couples while at the same time denying them access to civil marriage

          This is not inconsistent with the view that they were a stepping stone.

          The Labour Party; the Tories; the LibDems thought they were enough.

          They were reassured by the morons at Stonewall that segregation was enough.

          But back in 2005 people were willing to accept 2nd class citizenship but only on the understanding that it was temporary.

          The fact that Stonewall and the government parties were so out of touch with the LGBT community on this issue is a matter for them.

          1. Thats your view, dAVID

            I think its an extrremely polarised view and not completely rational.

            Nonetheless you are as entitled to your view as I am to express mine. You believe you are right, I believe you are wrong.

          2. Actuallly I just believe that you are sitting on the fence as you always do.

          3. @dAVID

            I just believe that you throw out remarks that you hope will barb someone whenever reasonable argument is put to you that differs from your own view.

            You suggest I sit on the fence (on some occasions – but given how vociferous our disagreements have been, its disingenuous of you to see that as a character trait of mine – and do I care to be frank …)

            You suggest that HappytobeCP’d is a Stonewall stooge – how paranoid are you? How childish are you?

            The world doesnt necessarily have to sit within your mindset – if people have different views to you that does not mean they are wrong …

            Nor does having differing views to you mean someone is sitting on the fence …

            Grow up …

          4. My suggestion that ‘Happy to be Cp’d’ is a Stonewall stooge is not paranoid.

            Don’t you recall when the issue of marriage equality has been discussed in the past that Pink News has revealed that messages from Stonewall’s IP addresses were used to post comment supporting CP’s over marriage equality.

            It is beyond ludicrous that a gay person without a vested interest would oppose marriage equality.

            Yet ‘Happy to be CP’d’ is condeming people who support equality as ‘victims’.

            Knowing how Stonewall has behaved on this issue in the past, it is only reasonable to highlight my suspicion that he is a Stonewall stooge.

            And your statements that CP’s were NOT solely invented to deny equality are absurd,

            They exist only and solely because Labour did not want to extend access to civil marriage to same sex couples.

            I don’t know how to describe your position as anything other than wilful ignorance.

          5. @dAVID

            That was before my day of a regular reader on PN if it happened …

            Nonetheless even if it did – jumping to the conclusion that because someone disagrees with you that they must be an “agent of Stonewall” appears (at least mildly) to be paranoid

        3. @Spanner1960

          I disagree with you. Surely in debate we can consider each others positions rather than try to stifle them – don’t you agree with freedom of speech?

          I do not believe that CPs are an attempt to deny marriage and I believe it is a mindset of those who have this view that sees them as being a negative thing rather than something that leads us to where we need to be.

          I celebrate with you and others in CPs (including a number of my friends). Many of my friends in CPs agree with me regarding the validity, strength and positivity of CPs. Some do not.

          You do not agree with me. That does not mean my view should not be offered or be ridiculed.

          1. Why were CP’s invented in 2005 specifically for same sex couples, when a perfectly functional contract (civil marriage) already existed?

            Seriously. You are being wilfully ignorant here.

          2. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 2:34pm

            I am not ridiculing your standpoint, but I am with dAVID on this point.
            CP’s were introduced simply because the government dared not drop gay marriage straight into the pot. It is as simple as that. Someone else mentioned the age of consent situation, which was exactly the same. Their attitude is to ease people’s mindsets in gradually to accommodate the concept. However in this case the entire thing has ground to a complete halt, and they will continue to prevaricate and procrastinate and hope the whole thing will blow over and we will all forget about it.

            You constantly try to take the easy option and view people as inherently decent and honest. This is where we differ; I do not.
            Sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns, scream and shout and rattle a few cages until things get done. Talk is cheap, and we have already had way too much of it.

          3. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 2:42pm

            The reason they never went straight for the gay marriage route was as I said earlier, politicians avoid entanglements with the church at any cost.
            Wherever there is a conflict, the government of the day will back down. I have never seen it any differently over numerous situations.

            Since they introduced CP’s as a wishy-washy compromise, the Church and their followers have been hell-bent on trying to preventing it going any further, and if anything, their protestations have become louder, whilst trying to misdirect the public by throwing in such red herrings as churches being forced to carry out same sex marriages, which was NEVER part of the deal.

            We need to stand concentrated and focused on the primary target and not give up until they run out of ammunition.

          4. @Spanner1960

            You might be right about shaking the bull by the horns … in some situtations …

            However, we have CPs and the shaking of the horns did not occur – and far from stagnating there has been significant progress on the issue of equal marriage in the last year.

            Also, if they had shaken the horns in this case the result may have been somewhat different – driven people further away from equal marriage, no CPs, no stepping stone and the argument for progression being put further back.

            You seem to have my view on people wrong too. I do not believe people are inherently good. I believe people have choices and can choose to be good. I believe people have a responsibility to behave honourably – but many choose not to.

            I believe we need to instill responsibility in people.

            If that can not happen then we enforce good standards if necessary.

          5. @dAVID

            I am not being wilfully ignorant. I am disagreeing with your view. The two things are not mutually inclusive.

          6. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 3:36pm

            “Significant progress”!!???
            You mean they sat around a table and talked about it some more?
            Please enlighten me on quite what *less* they could do? Anybody would think they were building another fcking Channel Tunnel.

            All they have to do is say “Agreed”. Sign it and thump iut with a rubber stamp. As dAVID pointed out, the civil marriage legislation has been in place for years, all they have to do is add “Mr & Mr” or Miss & Miss” to the top of the page. Why has that taken the best part of ten years to organise and they still haven’t done it?

            If this is your idea of progress, God help those that take their time over things.

          7. @Spanner1960

            If you had been told in 2010 that we would have a Conservative PM supporting equal marriage, a consultation in both England & Wales and Scotland on equal marriage, encouragement for it to develop in all three major parties, the Scottish and Welsh national parties, in many sectors of the media (including mainstream media), across much of society (given opinion polling) and some religious denominations supporting equal marriage – most people would have said getting all this would take many years … we have it … thats progress … its not the prize – but we are getting there and we will get there

  10. Will those same sex couples who were forced to enter into civil partnerships by the present bar on same sex marriage be given a free status upgrade from cp’d to married when same sex marriage is introduced by the present Government?

    1. IF it is introduced by the present government.

      We need to tell the government quiite bluntly that their plans to introduce equality by 2012 is completely unacceptable.

      Why is a 3.5 year delay necessary.

      Why are the government continually postponing their (admiittedly unncessary ‘consultation’ on equality).

      Marriage equality needs to be a reality by the summer of 2012.

      Otherwise the government is basically saying that it still regards us as 2nd class citizens.

      1. Is some idiot from Stonewall voting my comment down?

        I can’t think of anyone else who would be so self-hatingly thick, as to oppose full legal equality for same-sex couples by summer this year.

      2. WHEN it is introduced …

        I tend to encourage those who promise us things and seek to be optimistic about advanced in equality …

        I also tend not to override them on their time scales, encourage them to act earlier, but tend not to say well if its not here by such and such a date (which is the timescale I demand) then I will regard it as a broken promise … The government have said they WILL introduce equal marriage, they have said the deadline is 2015 (not that this is when it will happen, the latest that it will happen, it may happen before this) … lets encourage them to do it, and do it earlier – but lets not sound like petulent children by making demands unless they fail to keep their promise …

      3. No one said it would happen IN 2015, they said BY 2015 …. do you understand the difference in words, dAVID … because your repeated talk about summer 2012 suggests that either you need lessons in the English language or you spout empty rhetoric

    2. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 1:40pm

      I bloody well hope so or they might have a gay riot on their hands.

  11. As much as I wouldn’t enter into a civil partnership but would definitely marry if I could, I think CPs have paved the way for full marriage equality. The public has seen that CPs have in no way harmed marriage in any way shape or form. I think there will be a relatively easy transition to civil marriage equality. Yes, we’ll get the usual hysteria from the major religious denominations but the fact that they will be exempt or given the option not to recognise or accommodate same-sex couples will diminish opposition as has been seen with the recent law allowing a religious component for CPs. I think the consultation will emphasize that very point. As for the future of CPs, it’s hard to say if they will be retained or allowed to exist alongside same-sex civil marriage, or upgraded to marriages. I would think that will be addressed during the consultation. I think both should co-exist to respect those who don’t want to marry. Choice is a very good, positive thing.

    1. Indeed CP’s have paved the way for marriage equality.

      And marriage equality needs to be a reality in the UK by summer 2012.

      That gives the government loads of time.

      The ONLY thing that will delay equallity by summer 2012 is a lack of commitment by the Tories and the LibDems.

      They simply cannot be allowed to delay this until 2015. There no excuse for such an unnecessary delay.

      1. I agree. The recent consultation on religious elements for CPs is more than enough to enact civil marriage equality. I really don’t understand the need for such lengthy consultation when the groundwork has already been done since CPs are supposedly identical to marriage except for the discrepancies in pension distribution. What possible hurdles are there to overcome? I don’t consider religious objection a hurdle since this isn’t a religious matter at all. I hope that aspect is emphasised over and over during the consultation in spite of the expected objections by religious denominations.

    2. gino meriano 21 Dec 2011, 1:26pm

      why not for once give it a rest and just congratulate those that have done this, gained legal rights, protected their partners, their homes and their kids

      would you be so quick to judge if your partner was ill and had no protection and you lost everything?

      This is not the day to be political its a day to congratulate those that have entered into a Civil Parnership, enjoyed their wedding day with their family and friends

      1. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 1:45pm

        No, this is PRECISELY the day to be political!
        We have been fobbed off, deflected, ignored and generally told to calm down, by everyone including people like you.

        I am in a civil partnership because I don’t have the privilege of actually marrying the man I want. You may see this as some pyrrhic victory, but I sure as hell DO NOT!

      2. You are incorrect.

        CP’s have been a reality for 6 years.

        Those couples who needed them to secure legal rights and protections have enjoyed these rights for several years already.

        Today is ABSOLUTELY a day to be poltical and ask ‘Why after 6 years are we still being treated as 2nd class citizens.

        Those who needed CP’s have gotten them.

        Now it is the time for those of us who are legally married to have our marriages recognised by our home countries; and for those of us who simply believe in equality.

      3. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 2:01pm

        Thanks Gino, glad to see some common sense among the 2 prattling victims on here.

      4. Well said Gino

        We should be congratulating those in CPs and those about to enter them

        Of course, we should be encouraging the development of equal marriage – the tactics some seem to wish to use are far more likely to lose us allies than win the argument.

  12. My partner and I also got hitched in Taunton at the same time as Elton John in Windsor so he was ONE of the first Not the first. We had waited some 42 years before we were at last able to say in law your mine. It was the best thing Tony Blair ever did for gay couples.

  13. My late partner and I signed the London Partnership register in 2002 and then had a CP in March 2006. Sadly he died suddenly just over a year later, otherwise we would be first in the queue for Gay marriage when it eventually (and it will) comes. CP while not being ideal has made Gay relationships visible and more mainstream. It means people like me were able to inherit their partner’s estate without problems; I even get a spouse pension, something I would not have got without being in a CP. For many years of my life it was illegal for me to be myself and even after that became legal, it took 38 years to get CP’s , getting full marriage equality in the next few years should be seen in that context. We will prevail and we should all celebrate CP’s for what they are, a stepping stone to full marriage equality, yes, but also something that has given Gay Partnerships security , visibility and dare I say it, respectability to the general populace.
    Three Cheers for CP’s.

    1. Good for you.

      However CP’s were never adequate. They were only ever a stepping stone and they did not give equality. Therefore we should not be celebrating their existence, seeing as they were invented to deny us legal equality.

      It’s great that they helped you.

      But they have been a reallity for 6 years. Yet we are still waiting on marriage equality.

      Equality needs to be a reality by summer 2012.

      And there is no more excuses which are acceptable if it does not happen by then,

  14. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 2:24pm

    Can we get dAVID banned please? He is such an obvious troll!

    1. Oh you funny :)

      Can Pink News please check ‘Happy to be CP’d”s IP address?

      I suspect that he works for Stonewall; and we know that Stonewall has a history of posting on websites pretending that people support CP segregation.

      1. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 3:31pm

        Yes we all know who hates Stonewall don’t we, and it’s not gay people. No I don’t work for them. Maybe you work for the Christian Institute setting up straw men on gay websites. Makes much more sense.

        1. Why then are you opposed to civil marriage equality?

          1. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 3:46pm

            I’m not. Or religious marriage equality.

          2. @dAVID

            HappytobeCP’d never said he did not support marriage equality (of any type) – its you who choose to portray him/her in that way.

            Being happy to be in a CP and supporting others who are in them does not mean that they automatically do not seek equal marriage.

            and HappytobeCP’d is clearly right that dAVID makes his position on Stonewall abundantly and incessantly clear. It appears that he also perceives that anyone who does not agree with his views on something in totality thus is wrong and must be siding with Stonewall. Its one of the most immature and preposterous arguments that lacks any reason or logic that I have ever heard.

            I support some of Stonewalls work – they approach to marriage was wrong. I support CPs and want to keep them alongside civil marriage. I believe we have made significant strides in advancing the cause of equal marriage in the UK- but am impatient for it to be realised. Of course, I am wrong because dAVID does not agree with me …

          3. Thank you Stu. At least you can acknowledge that you are wrong.

    2. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 2:46pm

      Oh get over it. Just because he, (and I), have opposing views to you does not make them a troll.

      You might be willing to lie down and roll over and accept the scraps from the master’s table, but some of us are not.

      1. @SPanner1960

        In the same way that you and dAVID having different views to me (or others) does not make either of you (or me) a troll …

        Similarly, just because someone opposes you does not mean they either work for, support or endorse all or any of Stonewalls approach to any or all issues.

        1. Yes but you are aware of Stonewall’s past habit of posting on here supporting CP segregation over marriage equality?

          ‘Confused’ I think was the poster’s name. Pink News revealed that his IP address was from the Stonewall office but that the never identified himself as a Stonewall employee when posting.

          ‘Happy to be CP’d’ is actively condemning poeple who support equality. He is using the tired, lazy, old Stonewall trope ‘There is no difference between a CP and a civil marriage, so people should stop demanding equallity’

          I find that deeply suspicious, and in light of the FACT that Stonewall has done this before, I think it’s only fair to highlight the possibility that they are up to their old tricks.

          1. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 3:45pm

            No I don’t condemn people who support equality, just those who attack my CP and fail to see what a groundbreaking thing it was in this country. It is not ” second class ” but I do agree the time has come to do away with the distinction to ordinary marriage. This is a moment to appreciate what we gained, for a moment, not to whine and attack those who worked hard to gain it.

          2. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 4:11pm

            Happy to be CP’d “No I don’t condemn people who support equality.”
            No, but you don’t seem to want to support people that want to improve upon it either. So you are in a CP, that’s great, so am I, and it serves its purpose, but it is not equality, and will never be if people like you continue to just put up with what you are given.

            If we fight for what we really want, those of us already in CP’s should automatically be upgraded to fully-fledged married people and not have to suffer the indignity of being viewed as inferior by many.

          3. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 4:40pm

            Spanner, sure I support further moves, and those working for further evolution, what I object to, on an article intended to take a moment to celebrate what we’ve gained, is that you and dAVID cant even do that, you both, well mainly dAVID ( assuming you are separate people ) just launch into attacks, wingeing and moaning and attacking people willy nilly and making offensive remarks about people in CPs. You are the sort of people that play into the hands of the evangelicals by appearing so relentlessly unreasonable, bitter and twisted that I find it hard to believe you are anything other than fakes on this site.

          4. I’m not aware of those issues regarding Stonewall – they sound reprehensible …

            I still think you are jumping to conclusions …

            Firstly, he clearly does support equal marriage and he is happy being in a CP … I don’t see any conflict …

          5. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 5:16pm

            Stu, I wouldn’t believe for a second anything dAVID posts here, it’s obvious he just makes stuff up. How would he know what PN knows? There’s been no article along those lines. A troll is a troll is a troll, and spanner has just more or less admitted to being behind all the trolling on the site. Probably includes Keith/Matt etc.

        2. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 3:40pm

          This whole “attack stonewall” and attempts to discredit them must make the evangelicals very happy. Which is what makes me suspicious of such attacks and the motives behind them. Most gay people are very appreciative of their work.

          1. Name 4.

      2. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 3:27pm

        So now you join him/it in lying about other people’s posts? What a surprise.

        No one here opposes doing away with the distinction between CP and straight marriage. But the intent of you both is to turn a celebration of a milestone for tens of thousands of Brits, into a bitter little whining contest about the half of the glass that is half empty, instead of stopping to appreciate for a moment what we have gained.

        it’s quite obvious that both of you come here just to put a “spanner” in the works. Why don’t you grow up a bit. How old is dAVID that he has to make up his silly little stories! 12 ? Clearly not old enough to actually get married anyway.

        1. Well if you want to celebrate 2nd class citizenship then good for you.

          However you’ve already been celebrating it for 6 years.

          It’s simply inadequate nowadays however and you cannot be allowed to hamper other people’s wish for legal equality.

          Civil marriage equality needs to be enacted by summer 2012.

          There are no acceptable excuses for any further delays.

          1. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 3:59pm

            The only person potentially hampering it is you and your strange bitter and immature little OTT masquerade on this website that plays right into the opponents’ hands. All you can see is the half of the glass that is empty. I suppose you will spend Christmas moaning about the presents you didn’t get.

            Just because I am happy to have a CP, and celebrate it, doesn’t mean I am opposed to the continued evolution to doing away with the distinctions. You don’t have to think of it as 2nd class to appreciate that the distinctions are pointless and should go.

            But your rather bitter and unappreciative approach just alienates people and is totally counterproductive.

          2. @dAVID

            You are beginning to sound like a record with the needle stuck …

            Which isnt that far away from being a troll … not that I think you are …

            When you want something achieved in government the usual practice that succeeds is to engage with the government constructively, barracking and making demands on time scales when the government have already promised what you seek within a time frame (slightly different to the one you seek) is hardly effective or constructive

        2. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 4:21pm

          Happy to be CP’d: “it’s quite obvious that both of you come here just to put a “spanner” in the works.”

          Someone finally figures my nom de plume.
          It is only through concious, concerted debate and sometimes playing Devil’s advocate that generates results. Next time you order a pint in a bar and get half a glassful, I really hope you will just shut up, sit down and accept your lot like the good little poof you are.

          Meanwhile the likes of dAVID and I will be standing up for what we believe in and making sure that not just us, but everybody, gets what was ordered.

          1. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 4:46pm

            Darling you’ve always been more obvious than your manipulative little mind would allow you to see.

            Concerted debate does not consist of playing troll, lying and appointing yourself Lord of the Flies.

            And you really don’t understand analogies do you?

          2. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 5:06pm

            “Meanwhile the likes of dAVID and I will be standing up for what we believe in and making sure that not just us, but everybody, gets what was ordered.”

            When it comes it will be no thanks to you. And you’ll be alone in the corner moaning about something else.

          3. @Spanner1960

            Good debate is not always about throwing out abuse or just stating that another opinion is wrong …

            Now here was me thinking you were calling yourself spanner because of an S&M connection …

          4. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 6:33pm

            The closest I get to S&M is you lot trying to flog a dead horse. :)

          5. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 6:45pm

            At what point have I ‘thrown abuse’ or even just stated people are wrong?
            I have already pointed out that I am happy people are in CP’s, but unlike you we should not rest on our laurels and just wait for these people to possibly get around to it, but pro-actively campaign for same sex marriage as soon as possible.

            Meanwhile others use language such as “strange bitter and immature” and even attempt to tar me with the same brush as complete morons like Keith and Matt, which I find offensive in the extreme.

            This character appears out of nowhere with a major chip on their shoulder actively parading the whole CP thing. I thought dAVID’s paranoia about him being a Stonewall stooge was rather too much, but now I am beginning to think he may be right, as they refuse to get down off their crucifix.

          6. @Spanner1960

            No I am not sitting on my laurels about equal marriage. I am encouraging the government and other interested parties to advance and to seize the opportunity to ensure equality happens. I am engaging constructively rather than engaging negatively. I am trying to advance the cause rather than agitating those we need to ensure are persuaded. I work pro-actively and engage with the decision makers rather than make them react negatively due to the contempt I treat them with.

            As for the abuse … well some of the comments you made to HappytobeCP’d earlier were abusive. But I do accept you have also been subject to less than charitable comments.

            I do think dAVIDs view on HappytobeCP’d being from Stonewall is speculative paranoia; and such allegations are usually better made with evidence.

            I do think you agitate sometimes deliberately (and I think you would accept this – and sometimes it does generate good debate). However, I certainly would not put you in the …

          7. … same category as Keith, Matt, Neal or Stuart Browning … far from it …

            I think you are passionate about what you say. I am too. I think many of the outcomes we would like are similar – the route we would choose to get there are different. We are unlikely to ever agree on everything (although if honest we agree on more than it would appear at face value). I wouldnt want to agree with everything, because I am my own person – and you clearly are similarly independent in your thinking.

    3. Consider that you might be a lot happier if you were not being so blatantly discriminated against by separate classification had a choice of being either cp’d or married.
      Equality means marriage equality not a two tier system of classification.

      1. Happy to be CP'd 21 Dec 2011, 4:27pm

        Yes the world has moved on so that Cp’s can and will just be absorbed into one institution. I will be equally happy when that happens. But to suggest that I should be unhappy “merely” to have a form of marriage contract that is only open to gay people, when the alternative was absolutely zero, and therefore should not celebrate that groundbreaking advance, is absurd. I can be extremely happy to have what I have, and celebrate it, and welcome further developments too. I don’t appreciate squirts like dAVID putting down what we have any more than when the Evangelicals do it.

  15. Andrew Boff 21 Dec 2011, 2:25pm

    But it was six years ago today that three couples entered into civil partnerships at 8am in Brighton; the exact time the legislation came into effect. And one couple in Hackney

    1. ……and one in Leeds, Terry George and Michael Rothwell.
      It was headline news on local radio and TV all day.

  16. The arguments about civil partnerships v civil marriage are nonsense. I support both. Of course lesbians and gays should be allowed to have civil marriage. Do deny sections of society full equality is wrong. However there is also a place for civil partnerships. Given that the three main differences between a civil partnership and a civil marriage are a) you don’t have to consummate a civil partnership b) “adultery” is not grounds for a divorce with civil partnerships and c) you can have a civil partnership in religious settings, I can see that some people would prefer a civil partnership to a civil marriage. There are lesbian and gay men with a faith that would want a religious ceremony, there are lesbians and gay men that would choose not to be in a monogamous relationship, and up to know, “consummation” has been defined by legal precedence which revolves around heterosexuals (will two gay men who choose not to have anal sex be considered as having their marriage consummated?). I also believe that it is right that a heterosexual couple should be able to opt for a civil partnership. Some heterosexuals do not want monogamous relationships but are committed to each other. Some heterosexuals (particularly elderly people) marry for companionship rather than sex. Civil marriages and civil partnerships are different and all people should be allowed to choose either depending on what type of relationship they want and we should not judge one form of partnership to be second rate to the other.
    It is the commitment and love in relationships that is important and not how people choose to construct or legally validate their relationship. The fact that less civil partnerships end in separation than heterosexual marriage is fantastic. I hope this trend continues in same sex civil marriage too. I’m sure it will.

    1. A rational comment … I agree, Simon … well thought out!

    2. Spanner1960 21 Dec 2011, 6:30pm

      I’m not sure you have that right:
      I have it on reliable sources there are only two differences, that the partnership does not have to be consummated, and that couple do not have to live together. I never heard anything about the ‘adultery’ clause, and I suspect that may be some people trying to slip the old “open relationship” crap in there with it.

    3. Look if my partner was sleeping aroud then I’d dissolve my CP on grounds of unreasonable behaviour. In theory “adultery” is cited as a difference I think but you’ve certainly missed the point of what CPs are all about!!! It’s for committed same sex couples and is identical to marriage which is for committed straight couple. It’s not about having the option sleep around!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. I got together or should I say “married” to my partner over 20 yrs ago. I think the congrats statements should be for that date.

    I’ve got to admit the CP certificate was meaningless to us, it was simply a way of getting rights in the UK.

    When we lived in France for a few yrs, it became a burden becuase it prevented us from doing a French PACS to get rights there. At that time France recongised foreing marriages and not CPs.

    Basically yeah it gave us rights in the UK but it certainly wasn’t the right thing to give us. We should always have had that marriage certificate.

  18. If we ever get full marriage equality in the UK then I simply don’t see the need to continue offering new CPs to anyone (same sex or straight). CPs were only invented for gays in the UK simply becuase as Lord Lester said in the HoL that Britain at that time wasn’t ready for gay marriage.

    They are the same thing, same rights with the same obligations (with slight differences). To me they are a sign of segragation, offering no new alternative method of partnership to anyone. Pointless! The feminist argument for CPs is just not a strong enough argument to make a worthwhile keeping them.

    My preference would be to scrap CPs completely and start working on a partnership scheme that people want which is a real alternative to marriage eg similar to a French PACS – something that really is different to a marriage. But I guess that will never happen.

  19. “Earlier this month, the regulations allowing civil partnerships to take place in religious buildings came into effect…”

    and yet again more segration and second class statuses were created..

    again this should only be seen as a stepping stone to religious marriage…we only have these becuase becuase first we are refused marriage and then secondly refused a religion…..I can guarantee you people wanting to do a religious CP actually want to do a religious marriage!

    Religious CPs for me just highlighted what a ridiuclous waste of time CPs are, what confusion it’s brought and what silly intricate legal twists in regualtions that have to ge gotten around becuase they, the govt , still refuse to still treat us equally in law…

  20. I met my boyfriend when we where both 19 in university 5 years ago, my brother who is one year older than me met his girlfriend about 6 months after and they are still in a happy relationship. My brother and his girlfriend have promised us that they will not get married until me and ross (my boyfriend) can get married in the church that our parents married in. they made the promise three years assuming it would only take a year before we had marriage equality. Three years later they have two twin girls and are still sticking by there promise! Fingers crossed we will be having a double wedding within the year but im not to optimistic!

    1. Good luck, Scott – I think you will get equal marriage soon (civil) not sure about how long the church side will take …

    2. Spanner1960 22 Dec 2011, 10:13am

      A nice gesture, but I seriously wouldn’t hold your breath on that one. A marriage in a registry office is one thing, but I do think it is wrong to force churches to do the same, and they have been spouting the same old guff for the last 2000 years so I really don’t think they are going to to change their views any time soon.

  21. GingerlyColors 22 Dec 2011, 7:22am

    A big fuss was made about the proposals to reduce the age of consent from 21 to 18, then 18 to 16. A similar fuss was made about gays being allowed to serve in the military then people kicked off about Civil Partnerships when they were being introduced. When these things finally happened they turned out to be non-issues.
    Sir Elton John CP-d David Furnish in one of the first ceremonies and together they have become the ‘Posh and Becks’ of the gay world, raising our profile in a positive way.

  22. I just don’t understand this, as long as I have equal rights to a married couple I am happy with my Civil Partnership, and no way would I swap my partnership certificate for one that say’s Marriage.
    I personally would not want a religious service either let alone having one in cold dingy old church, also I feel far more comfortable saying I am in a Civil Partnership than saying I am married.

    1. Spanner1960 22 Dec 2011, 11:04pm

      Who says you have to go to a church to get married?

      1. Who says it has to be called married?

        That would be my preference, but not everyones …

        1. Spanner1960 23 Dec 2011, 1:12pm

          You just don’t get it, do you Stu?

          The word ‘marriage’ is universally accepted. Using all these other daft alternatives just gives people room to dodge the issue and claim it to be something else, which is precisely what the whole Civil Partnership debacle is all about. They may be virtually equivalent, but they are not *called* marriage, which is ultimately what most of us want.

          1. No, Spanner1960

            I do get it … I want it … I want to be married to the man of my dreams … I was equal marriage …

            But I also get that not everyone shares my views and I believe that the views of those people who do not agree with me also matter …

            So, Spanner1960 its you who DO NOT GET IT

          2. Spanner1960 24 Dec 2011, 2:33pm

            What is wrong with wanting equality?
            Either you are equal or you are not. There are no in-betweens, grey areas or compromises. You are either in or you are out.

            Now for once Stu are you going to get off that cold fence and make a choice before you get piles?

          3. @Spanner1960

            Nothing wrong with seeking equality – which I do …

            Everything wrong with saying that your definition of how that happens in practice is one size that must fit all … thats not equality thats uniformity

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.