Latest Breaking News

muriel_volestrangler

(105,882 posts)

23. So what you seem to be saying is the only option should be 'marriage'

Mon May 20, 2013, 06:40 PM

May 2013

What I was saying, but you seem to have accepted, is that getting rid of the term 'marriage' as being what the state recognises would piss off a lot more people than just the "traditional family values" brigade. It would piss off most married people, who are happy with what they did, and are quite happy for same sex couples to do too, but who wouldn't see why their official state would no longer be 'married'. But it would be proving the homophobic activists right - it actually would be affecting existing marriages, whereas starting same sex marriages doesn't.

Saying all current civil partnerships are now marriages is a possibility, but you would have to consider if there are any legal implications. It's not necessarily the simplest option.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

27 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gay marriage: Downing Street pleads with Labour to save bill [View all] dipsydoodle May 2013 OP

Extending civil partnerships: will it really cost £4bn? muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #1

I wasn't aware of the differentiation between state and private pensions. dipsydoodle May 2013 #3

That's an Irish site muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #4

I'd failed to notice that dipsydoodle May 2013 #7

Rather buried in all that is that the Labour front bench will support the Loughton amendment muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #2

Update: Labour front bench not to support Loughton, but table amendment for 'review' muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #5

My message to Labour Party: my vote in exchange for your vote for Equal Rights without any idwiyo May 2013 #6

That's the paradox dipsydoodle May 2013 #8

Easiest way to fix it is to have Civil Partnership as THE ONLY binding contract. idwiyo May 2013 #9

No, that would sink the entire concept muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #19

"Marriage" would be a civil partnership, recognised by the state as the only binding contract. idwiyo May 2013 #22

So what you seem to be saying is the only option should be 'marriage' muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #23

What I am saying is that religion should be taken out of legal binding contracts. Nothing to do with idwiyo May 2013 #25

It's not about whether there are differences - you're saying there should only be one version muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #27

Amazing to watch folks suddenly care about 'complete equality without qualifiers' Bluenorthwest May 2013 #11

They will tie themselves in fucking knots to avoid the actual issue. Can't risk offending idwiyo May 2013 #16

I'm lost. Grins May 2013 #10

Me too. And I read the entire article. Nye Bevan May 2013 #12

I don't know what would happen dipsydoodle May 2013 #14

Instead of voting for full equality UK government created a separate type of legal partnership for idwiyo May 2013 #13

There's a bit of jockeying for position muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #15

Sounds like Labour were close to allowing marriage equality to be sabotaged Nye Bevan May 2013 #17

I don't know why they had taken their earlier position muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #20

That's a bit ridiculous. Nye Bevan May 2013 #21

I hope they get it right. hrmjustin May 2013 #18

So far, amendments are proceeding OK muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #24

For our American viewers dlwickham May 2013 #26