gabrielchew From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 2043 times:
I'm slightly confused on the whole matter. "On the ground", so to speak, will there be any differences? Or is it that civil partnerships can now be converted into marriages, just so they can say they are married and "equal". Are there any additional benefits? If not, I think the Government should probably concentrate on more important matters. I mean, how many people that have had civil partnership ceremonies don't already say "We're married"? "We're civil partnershiped" doesn't really roll off the tounge!
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 741 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 2026 times:
Quoting kaitak (Reply 1): I wonder how the Lords will vote? I'd expect it to be a lot tighter there.
With the majority that's been shown, they'll usher it through pretty quickly. Even if they don't, it can be forced through in 2014 without the Lord's approval.
Quoting gabrielchew (Reply 2): "On the ground", so to speak, will there be any differences
Sort of... Marriage is recognised worldwide, civil partnerships aren't. People have also run into issues with civil partnerships (over life insurance etc), as well as bereavement leave and this shouldn't happen under same sex marriage. On a practical level though, yeah, it's not that much different, this is a largely symbolic move.
Quoting gabrielchew (Reply 2): If not, I think the Government should probably concentrate on more important matters.
They are concentrating on other things too, but there's no benefit in ignoring everything except for the economy. Everyone that should be concentrating on the economy is. It's not as if this is a massive distraction. I'd also argue that this is massively important, especially for Cameron and Osborne. This is their baby, really - the centrepiece of their tenure is modernisation of the Nasty Party to a party that future electorates will be able to vote for. Cameron knows it's things like this now that will give the Conservatives credibility in the future; it's Blair's clause 4 saga. Where Blair damned socialist economics and embraced liberal policy, Cameron is damning conservative social policy and embracing liberal ones (which he needs to do).
I have a lot of respect for David Cameron he is trying to bring the party forward and if I still had a vote in the UK I would vote for him. Im sure this will go through after a media hype and some old reliables who are against it try to get attention.
bwest From Belgium, joined Jul 2006, 1400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 1921 times:
Congratulations UK! Just a question for the UK audience here: Does marriage always has to be in front of the church?because over here we have civil marriage and church marriage; civil marriage is the only legal form of marriage. Church marriage is more like a tradition but doesn't have any legal implications. So I don't understand why there is such a big fuss or discussion about churches having to perform marriages as overhere the state cannot tell the church to do this
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 741 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 1884 times:
Quoting bwest (Reply 5): Does marriage always has to be in front of the church?
The UK has an established religion, and so marriage *can* be in front of the Church *and* be recognised by the state. Of course you can also have a secular wedding with a registrar, and both are equal before the law.
Aesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 7753 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months ago) and read 1842 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 6): The UK has an established religion, and so marriage *can* be in front of the Church *and* be recognised by the state. Of course you can also have a secular wedding with a registrar, and both are equal before the law.
From what I read last summer (since this was being discussed at the time) the CoE won't be able to wed same sex persons, only other religions.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
raffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1733 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1796 times:
The churches won't have to marry anybody they don't want to but it would give the churches that DO support this to marry same sex couples IF they want. I think it will be a matter of seeing which churches are brave enough to carry out the ceremonies. I'm not religious anyway so a church wedding wouldn't be my first choice but I think this was brought forward because the government want to implement a married couple tax benefit and by cutting out the gay population then it would be very unfair. Why should my taxes already go to help people with working tax credits etc, schooling, playgrounds etc - all of which I don't get any benefit from. The tax benefits need to benefit everybody, not just a select few.
Anyway, also a lot of people did want this and there was pressure on the government to provide full equality so it's a wonderful step.
Not always. Here in Australia same-sex marriage is not recognised, a Bill proposing a change to the Marriage Act having been defeated in Parliament. Despite that, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade does issue Certificates of No Impediment to same-sex couples who wish to marry in a country that requires such a certificate. However, same-sex marriages conducted overseas are not recognised as a marriage in Australia, but may be evidence of a de facto relationship for the purposes of Commonwealth, State and Territory laws.
So we have the situation here where people have travelled overseas to marry, were married, all their family and friends see them as married, but the law doesn't. An example is South Australian Government Minister, Ian Hunter who married his partner of more than two decades, Leith Semmens, in a ceremony at Jun, near in the Spanish city of Granada. Legally married in Spain but not recognised in Australian law.