These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous please click "Report" or email us. Terms and Conditions · Privacy Policy
London: Gay couple threatened with death in violent late night homophobic assault
141
Government considers watered down same-sex marriage bill to minimise Tory rebellion
133
Tory MP Gerald Howarth: 'There are plenty in the aggressive homosexual community who want more than just same-sex marriage'
94
France: Far right activist commits suicide in Notre Dame following legalisation of equal marriage
93
Philip Hammond: 'No great demand for gay marriage and it's upsetting vast numbers of people'
73
Government to consider abolishing civil partnerships or opening up to straight couples
68
Norman Tebbit: David Cameron has 'f**** things up' with his equal marriage bill
65
David Cameron: Gay teenagers will stand that bit taller following equal marriage vote
60
Lib Dem Deputy Leader Simon Hughes: 'Marriage should be between one man and one woman'
58
US church blames Oklahoma tornado on gay basketball player Jason Collins
55
Robert in S. Kensington 671
GulliverUK 336
Jock S. Trap 314
Eddy 312
Iris 285
Mark Y 283
That There Other David 281
rapture 269
Rehan 261
Wingby 241
I cannot see my husband doing a church wedding at midnight, and the elderly choir and bell ringers would not be amused.
It might give some lovely wedding pics at dawn or by moonlight, but should not become an excuse to prosecute and extort money from individuals if they say no, they are not available for a marriage of any kind at unreasonable hours.
Sarah Rapson obviously isn’t aware that CPs do not have vows, no mandatory ring is exchanged and no walks down the aisle, reserved only for hetero couples who choose to marry.
We had all of those at our CP. I suppose it depends on your local authority and the facilities they have.
None of it is mandatory, but many people do, including myself.
But then you would probably just consider us being “heteronormative” I guess.
What’s the point of this.
Why is the CP law being adjusted when it is to scrapped before the next election?
The Prime Minister has given a specific promise to the LGBT community that we will have marriage equality by the next election.
So this looks like timewasting.
Unless of course Cameron is lying, and in fact has no intention of legislating for equal civil rights for LGBT people, and is making this cosmetic change to pretend that he supports equal civil rights.
As far as I know, the CP law is not being abolished. It wasn’t mentioned in the consultation. I suspect it will be retained for those who would rather not marry and would be unfair to those who prefer a separate union.
I doubt this very much.
I think the far more likely result is that the Tories have zero intention of legislating for equal marriage rights.
If marriage equality is introduced then effectively the CP law is obsolete (CP’s were created with the sole intention of denying same sex couples equality, so why would they be kept on?)
The fact that the Tories are altering the CP law should be sounding VERY loud alarm bells.
Remember that despite David Cameron’s specific promise to legislate for equal civil rights, we stil do not have a specific timetable for when we will have equal civil rights.
Why not?
dAVID.
I agree with you on every turn.
My “Civil Partnership”, bread crumbed via new labour to me at the time, is NOT enough.
To me it is “Back of the bus”
My husband is sick to death of my continual fussing on this subject, but to me it is a simple matter of equality. Nothing more nothing less.
The games these bl@@dy politicians and churches are playing is quite pathetic.
I pay £150,000 in tax per annum.
Enough to keep thousands of little heterosexuals in their constant over populating breeding.
It has *always* been said that civil partnership laws will be kept after marriage equality. Some people in a civil partnership do not want to have it automatically changed to a marriage, or automatically dissolved, and without keeping civil partnerships alongside equal marriage those would be the only two options, both of which would be forcing couples into situations they have not explicitly chosen. It may be that 99% of those currently in a civil partnership will choose to convert it to a marriage, but that needs to be their choice, not the choice of the government.
In the Equality Network’s survey in Scotland of people in a CP, 60% said they would want to convert to a marriage; 40% wanted to keep their CP, even after same-sex marriage is available.
Of LGBT people not in a CP, 25% said they’d prefer a CP in future, and 75% a marriage, if both were available. So there’s plenty of demand for keeping CPs, and that’s what the Scottish Govt intends to do. We’ll have to wait until the UK Govt publish the result of their consultation at the end of the year, to find out what they intend.
Furthermore, if you abolish CPs, you also abolish overnight the recognition in the UK of foreign same-sex registered partnerships.
I really don’t see the point of having two parallel systems.
It is not only confusing, discriminatory and pointless, it also just adds to the ludicrous amont of red tape this country has to put up with.
CP’s were an unacceptable fudge and compromise and should never have existed in the first place, and all CP’s should be automatically upgraded to marriage free of charge.
LGBT people want equality, well take it, and stop pussyfooting around.
Time-wasting? When anti-gay campaigners say that marriage equality is a “waste of time” distracting from on the economy, equality campaigners reply that the government can do two things at once.
By the same logic, we can’t expect the government to cease all other business until marriage is equal. Presumably the government can extend registrars’ working hours without the Equalities Office grinding to a halt.
Much as I loathe CPs, for as long as we’re stuck with them, I certainly expect the government to treat CPs and marriages equally. If marriages can now be solemnised at night, the government is right to apply the same rules to CPs.
Surely the efforts would be better spent on legislating for equal civil rights.
If (and it’s a big if considering the disgusting homophobic bigotry of such a large part of the Tories) we are to get equal civil rights in the next 2 years then this change is kind of trivial .
Sadly I think this news shows that the Tories have zero intention of legislating for equality, and that the Tory Party remains the party of hatred and bigotry.
This is in regards to all types of civil unions in a registry office as even heterosexual unions were limited to being between those times not just Civil Partnerships especially as civil partnerships did not exist at the time the law was brought in!!!
dAVID, I think your fears are well-founded.
Firstly, there’s been nothing but promises and declarations, when all they have to do is do it and pass the law.
Secondly, as you suggest this could be a way of throwing us the runner-up prize, the ability to get married at 8pm on a Saturday night and have a good piss up . . . in the hope that we superficial lesbians and gays will not feel so sore about not getting Marriage Equality.
I can’t believe that people are not even reading full articles now! Read the full article and you will find that they are talking about marriages AND civil partnerships – ie EVERYONE will be able to have that ceremony at whatever time they want to have it. Not just gays wanting a civil partnership.
Can anyone offer an explanation as to why we don’t have a specific timetable for marriage equality yet?
It’s a simply matter of introducing legislation.
(The public consultation was only ever a delaying tactic).
Cause they are politicians.
They do not want anyting that hurts them..
In other words… Chancers,
Anyway, by the by, what are the new hours for CPs???? The article doesn’t say.
8am to 6pm has been extended to 8am to . . . what?
The time restrictions have been removed altogether not extended
“as outdated time restrictions on civil partnership ceremonies are removed by the government”
Typo in the article – the General Register Office started doing weddings in the 19th century not the 17th century.
I suspect not a typo, just crap PN research as usual.
It really does amaze me that in the past what stupid and very silly laws we really have. It is good that this outdated law was abolished. Why ban night time weddings and civil partnerships anyway?
Some lawmakers had way too much time smoking pot and coming up with this silly marriage law I must say!
Now let’s pass a law that allows equal civil marriage for gay couples and KEEP the existing civil partnerships law please without delay please as you promised David Cameron.