Already gay couples can be legally joined in a Civil Union that ensures the same benefits in law as hetero married folks. This is a welcome advancement from the current situation, as reported in yesterday's Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038427/Gay-marriage-legal-Britain-2015.html

There may be a bit of feather ruffling amongst certain groups however but this is a done deal. Hurrah!

Briggy

E&OE



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2011 03:56AM by brigantia.

Only fourteen years after the Netherlands and twelve years after Belgium? The UK is not the backwater we think it is ;)

Just kidding. But now that I think of it, Holland and Belgium may have had quite an influence on this: Cameron's veep, Nick Clegg, is a native speaker of the language of those two countries. His mother is from Holland, and he himself spent five years studying and working in Brugge (Bruges).

No poly legal, no equality.

Since civil unions for gays in Britain give gays the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, why is it taking 3 1/4 years to change from calling them "civil unions" to calling them "marriages"?

Marriages must be conducted in public etc. Perhaps there are fake marriages to gain residency that would need to be cleaned up first - a major problem here.

Just a guess I suppose but passing Bills in Parliament takes time too. We are a democracy and objections must be heard. This is going to be an interesting issue for sure.

Briggy

E&OE



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2011 03:56AM by brigantia.

If it was, then here is my response:

"Just a guess I suppose but passing Bills in Parliament takes time too. We are a democracy and objections must be heard. This is going to be an interesting issue for sure."

1: If it takes so much time to pass the bill, then it can hardly be called a, as you say, done deal.

2: Many, many laws in the USA democracy are passed in less than 3 1/4 years. This is particularly true of laws that are considere3d a done deal. Indeed, in the USA, all laws must be passed within a single legislative session, if they are not, then the whole process must be restarted the next session.

"Because marriage laws in the UK are too complex for mormons to deal with" has nothing to do with the point I was making.

"Marriages must be conducted in public etc. Perhaps there are fake marriages to gain residency that would need to be cleaned up first - a major problem here." If, as you say, civil unions give the same rights as marriage, then it should suffer the same problems and cleaning up the problem should not be an issue.

No, I still see no reason why simply changing the name of civil unions to marriage should take 3 1/4 years.

so this is not just a situation of changing nomenclature.

From the article:

"At present, gays and lesbians are allowed to enter civil partnerships, which offer most of the legal protections of marriage. But the term ‘marriage’ is not used."

What brigantia said: "Already gay couples can be legally joined in a Civil Union that ensures the same benefits in law as hetero married folks"

So excuse me for discussing this in the context of accepting what other posters have said here.

THe other source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnership_in_the_United_Kingdom

"Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. "

So, again, excuse me for checking the info given.

And more clearly yet, we have a conflict in definitions. The article says they are not equal. Wiki says they are.

So which is the truth?

Either way, acting like a tool towards brigantia doesn't get you anywhere.

They are not equal purely because of that one word marrage. It may give next or kin rights but because the word marrage isnt used many busnisses are descriminateing against gay coples saying they arent married because it's just a cival partnership.

The fact is lots of people were still able to descriminate as it was a civial partnership instead of a marrage. Those words let them in law do some nasty things.

... and it's kinda interesting that the 'Mail' is one of the most right-wing papers in the UK, but that article's pretty relaxed...

This was not an invitation to have a cheap pop at British law and democratic process but hey, if this is what floats your boat, knock yourself out dear.

Briggy

E&OE



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2011 03:57AM by brigantia.

Indeed I actually accepted your claims in the original post for what they were, even though they contradicted what the article said. Your claim "Already gay couples can be legally joined in a Civil Union that ensures the same benefits in law as hetero married folks" the claim in the article: "At present, gays and lesbians are allowed to enter civil partnerships, which offer most of the legal protections of marriage." Clearly different claims.

I pointed out that I was bothered by the 3 1/4 year process to take care of a simple name change.

Then in post http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,297828,297848#msg-297848 you went from just being a messenger to being an apologist trying to explain away something that seems to be a legitimate criticism. So, I am not shooting the messenger I am shooting the the apologetics coming from an apologist that has gone far beyond what was reported.

Oh, I do find one thing very objectionable and very telling. Under civil unions in Britain churches are allowed, but not forced, to conduct civil union ceremonies in the Church. Under the proposed marriage law, churches, even those that want to, would be PROHIBITED from conducting gay marriages in a church. Yeah, that's equality for ya, phtt.

So, my dear brigantia, if you had stuck with your original post, I would have had no reason to shoot down your attempts at apologetics. If you read my response to you above, at no point was I critical of YOU, I was only critical of the claims you made in defense of what was going on in Britain.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2011 03:44PM by MJ.

Prince Harry, I would become a princess? I've already got the tiara.

I'm not sure how long it's been in effect, but at least a few years. This in a country where traditional Catholic feast days like the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception are still legal holidays.

Anyway, it's great that another EU country recognises marriage equality. I'm hoping Ireland will join the list soon.

Yay! Can I be sealed to Freddie Mercury now? I'm not gay, but wouldn't THAT be cool!

Ron