Comments on: Tribunal hearing over civil partnerships on forms

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:56:00 +0000

The Catholic Parliamentary Offices views are…."It may be that the government has chosen to give special treatment to those who wish to register same-sex relationships but the nature of that relationship is incompatible with the role provided by marriage," according to their website.I wonder how these same people view the role provided by marriage for straight married couples who can't have children or just don't want them since procreation is in their view the primary role of marriage. I think this is more to do with downright homophobia, irrespective of the religious element in all this.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Neville

Neville — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:55:00 +0000

The Mcquade's claim that the category 'married/civil partnership' is both religious and sexual discrimination, in that their relationship would appear under that heading, cannot be upheld. The majority of marriages that take place are civil and not religious – in 2003 there were 183,124 civil weddings and 86,985 religious weddings. Therefore, it is not possible to define the category of 'married' as religious. As far as sexual discrimination is concerned, males and females can enter into civil partnerships. A civil partnership is not something that is confined to males or to females. Wherein lies the sexual discrimination?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: apYrs

apYrs — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:38:00 +0000

if the ET does find that CP is not equivalent to marriage, then there will be a lot of red faces in Govt, the judiciary, and those in the gay community who have given the impression that they are equivalent

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:10:00 +0000

a discrimination claim can be brought whilst you are in employment or before you are employed by a company. One of the McQuades obvioulsy felt that the question was in itself discriminatory and hence brought the claim. It does though seem to be a publicity stunt brought against a public body by a pressure group to get maximum exposure. It probably wouldn't have been picked up by the media if the questionnaire was from a small private company.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Stranger

Stranger — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:35:00 +0000

This article doesn't explain why the issue comes under the remit of an employment tribunal in the first place. Did one of the McQuades lose or leave his or her job? The whole thing smells like a publicity stunt orchestrated by this bigoted Catholic pressure group.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:59:00 +0000

Why don't the mcquades just strike out the civil partnership part of the question and then it is clear to all that they are 'married in the eyes of god' etc.Why waste the time of the tribunals and taxpayer's money on this?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:13:00 +0000

Del, there are no marriages that are refered to as Civil Partnerships. We need to stop buying into that lie.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:12:00 +0000

How many times do we have to have people remind us that civil partnerships aren't the same or equivalent to marriage before we understand that they are right.Until marriage is available to gay couples and civil partnerships are available to straight couples there is NO equality and we will continue to have these issues and we will continue to be "second class" and "other".

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Del

Del — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:49:00 +0000

My husband and I were legally married in 2003. I'm offended that the McQuades choose to disrespect marriages – even the ones referred to as Civil Partnerships.And from a Christian perspective, I pray they find Jesus someday.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Neville

Neville — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:45:00 +0000

I fail to see how there can be religious discrimination in the definition of marriage as opposed to civil partnerships. A very large number of people who have entered into civil marriage, which cannot in any way contain a religious element, would find it offensive, as the Mcquades claim,to find themselves equated with a religious concept of marriage. Therefore, marriage cannot inevitably be defined as religious and to equate it on employees' records as 'married/civil partnership' cannot be religious discrimination.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Mike Hunt

Mike Hunt — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:09:00 +0000

If, as the McQuades disingenuously claim, this was really about religious discrimination, how come they didn’t object that there was no way to distinguish between civil and religious marriages .. or even marriages entered into under different faiths?. Surely they wouldn’t want to be confused with protestants, Anglicans, Muslims and heathens.

(Report comment to the moderator)