captainmission
Well-Known Member
As of 2006 91% of LGBT people supported same sex marriage.
here
Civil partnership was a compromise with religious bigots.
Gay Marriage discussion
- Thread starter Miss Caphat
- Start date
As of 2006 91% of LGBT people supported same sex marriage.
Civil partnership was a compromise with religious bigots.
captainmission
Well-Known Member
Care to say who these moderate voices were?
Doctor Carrot
Marxist Henchman
Thanks for this.
Not really because it'll just be a 'ner, they're not moderate' and it will make an argument where there isn't one. To be clear, I am not against gay marriage at all I just, obviously, underestimated the significance of the change and I was under the impression it wasn't as widely supported amongst gays as it obviously is.
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
We don't quite have equal marriage yet by the way.
I'm quoting from someone's twitter account, but it spans multiple tweets, so easier to copy it here...
Previously, if a married person transitioned and wanted a GRC (gender recognition certificate), they would have to divorce, get the GRC, then enter a civil partnership. And vice versa - if you were in a CP, you'd have to dissolve it, get the GRC and then get married. This was because marriage and civil partnerships were ~different~ and we couldn't have trans people muddying the waters and blending them. Now, gay people can get married, which means it should be easier! Right? No more scrapping one and switching to the other? lol no Previously you had to be unmarried/CP'd to get a GRC. Now you can get one if you're married, but your spouse has to consent. Yup. You need to get your spouse's permission to transition. If they refuse, you can't get the GRC - because you're married. If we had true equal marriage, that wouldn't matter - transitioning would be fine, because the genders in the marriage wouldn't matter. But the spousal veto exists because someone panicked about the idea of a marriage becoming a ~gay marriage!~ if someone transitions. Because they are Not The Same. So it's shitty if you're trans, because someone else gets to decide whether or not you can transition. But it's shitty if you're cis too, because this ridiculous nervous dancing around proves your marriage isn't the same as a REAL marriage. So this isn't equal marriage. It's only just same-sex marriage, and barely. It's a big step, but we've still got a long way to go. Thank you @karitaramona for reminding me the spousal veto only applies to England and Wales; as usual, Scotland is ahead of the rest of us.
from here: https://twitter.com/josiepublic
Worth remembering when we talk about having 'won' the battle.
I'm quoting from someone's twitter account, but it spans multiple tweets, so easier to copy it here...
Previously, if a married person transitioned and wanted a GRC (gender recognition certificate), they would have to divorce, get the GRC, then enter a civil partnership. And vice versa - if you were in a CP, you'd have to dissolve it, get the GRC and then get married. This was because marriage and civil partnerships were ~different~ and we couldn't have trans people muddying the waters and blending them. Now, gay people can get married, which means it should be easier! Right? No more scrapping one and switching to the other? lol no Previously you had to be unmarried/CP'd to get a GRC. Now you can get one if you're married, but your spouse has to consent. Yup. You need to get your spouse's permission to transition. If they refuse, you can't get the GRC - because you're married. If we had true equal marriage, that wouldn't matter - transitioning would be fine, because the genders in the marriage wouldn't matter. But the spousal veto exists because someone panicked about the idea of a marriage becoming a ~gay marriage!~ if someone transitions. Because they are Not The Same. So it's shitty if you're trans, because someone else gets to decide whether or not you can transition. But it's shitty if you're cis too, because this ridiculous nervous dancing around proves your marriage isn't the same as a REAL marriage. So this isn't equal marriage. It's only just same-sex marriage, and barely. It's a big step, but we've still got a long way to go. Thank you @karitaramona for reminding me the spousal veto only applies to England and Wales; as usual, Scotland is ahead of the rest of us.
from here: https://twitter.com/josiepublic
Worth remembering when we talk about having 'won' the battle.
Last edited:
Garek
Living n ADDled chaos
Good post. This is why I have a huge problems with all the celebrations. An expansion and updating of hetero-normative values is all this really is.
I personally belive "equal marriage" is an oxymoron.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
yes and no.
(I'm sure we've had this out on several other threads but...)
to some extent the whole 'civil partnership' thing was a good old fashioned british fudge - designed to try and keep everyone happy.
obviously the more extreme bigots still objected, and since it was a "separate but equal" thing, it was also possible to argue that it was not full equality, that it was a second class of union, as only straight couples were allowed 'proper' marriage.
I have somewhat mixed feelings.
I don't think that the civil state should have the right to compel any religious denomination to do stuff it doesn't want (the CoE and RC churches won't formally marry divorced people, hence Jug Ears having a civil ceremony in Windsor a year or two back - although the CofE in its usual style of fudging things will then do a ceremony to bless such a couple after the formal wedding)
There is an argument that same sex couples shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, since that's arguably (with the concept of 'giving away' the bride and so on) not about a partnership of equals but about treating women as chattels. That leads to an argument that straight couples should have the right to do civil partnership instead of marriage.
Personally, I'm not convinced I'm the marrying kind (in any sense of the concept) any more than I wanted to join the armed services at a time when the "no poofters" rule was still in force, but find it hard to justify not allowing people the right to equality on the grounds of sexuality, and not allowing people to have equal choices.
If it was up to me, I'd make the state responsible for all civil legal aspects of partnership in a completely gender neutral way, dis-establish the CofE, and allow all religious bodies to carry out whatever sorts of partnership / marriage / whatever ceremonies that they want to.
how is what Cameron says here anything to do with conservatism, other than because he says it is?
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
Again, I think I've said it elsewhere, I am still unsure quite what DC's agenda is here.
Part of me still thinks this is his attempt to do a 'clause 4' thing like tony blair did.
I think it is possible that he genuinely believes in (moving towards) equality as regards LGB people.
Or at least so long as those LGB people behave more like white, respectable, middle-class, suburban, tory voting types. (compare & contrast with tory attitudes towards ethnic minorities)
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
or, the calculation is that a socially liberal conservative party will pick up more votes from the centre than it will lose them to the right. Does UKIP have homophobic policies? I'm sure it has homophobic members (as does the tory party), but I can't imagine their actual policies rocking the socially liberal consensus...
Garek
Living n ADDled chaos
Because marriage and it's supposed role in creating a stable society has deep conservative roots.
Garek
Living n ADDled chaos
Define "deep human roots"
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
Hard to say - UKIP stance on most things seems to vary from one week to the next.
From their website
This can pretty much mean anything you want - but suggests possible repeal of hate crime, and possibly some equalities legislation.
Nigel Farage talking to 'Pink News' here
UKIP Youth leader sacked for supporting gay marriage - here
Garek
Living n ADDled chaos
Nearly all current societies have some sort of bonding ritual yes. I think your conflating that with the specific institution that exists within our society (or rather most Western/Christian societies).
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Rather a strange one for Cameron. No huge populous pressure, and not a manifesto commitment. Rushed through with little consultation.
Some commentators reckon that it will cost Cameron votes at the next election, it probably will.
Some commentators reckon that it will cost Cameron votes at the next election, it probably will.
That may be so in the short term, but this is really about repositioning the Tory party in the longer run to appeal to a younger and more socially liberal demographic. The age of the average Tory voter is pretty high and - to put it bluntly - a few elections from now a lot of them will have kicked the bucket. Attracting younger voters - among other things - is essential to keeping the Tory party viable electorally in the future.
It's probably true that UKIP will mop up some disgruntled social conservatives, but again, the average age of them will be pretty high. UKIP need all the votes they can get and can't afford to be picky about who and how old they are now, but it is one thing that puts a question mark over their longer-term viability.
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
I've campaigned for same sex couple to have marriage/partnership rights for decades. Didn't care what they called the law - as long as it gave me some legal protection to be my girlfs next-of-kin, protection if one of us dies and recognised our families as real - not 'pretend' - hugely inpartant for gay people with children.
Personally didn't mind the fudge of calling it Civil Partnership - happy for my sex life not to be legally defined - pleased that religious zealots found it less objectionable - they hate us enough as it is. The same sex marriage bill has given christians or others, cause to organise and lobby against it - I fear a backlash. I hate the idea of doing something that Cameron approves of - I'll never forget Conservative created Clause 28 and voted to keep it.
I got civilly partnered especially didn't want to get 'married'. Its ludicrous that we have 2 ways to legally te the knot available to us, and hetrosexuals don't.
Personally didn't mind the fudge of calling it Civil Partnership - happy for my sex life not to be legally defined - pleased that religious zealots found it less objectionable - they hate us enough as it is. The same sex marriage bill has given christians or others, cause to organise and lobby against it - I fear a backlash. I hate the idea of doing something that Cameron approves of - I'll never forget Conservative created Clause 28 and voted to keep it.
I got civilly partnered especially didn't want to get 'married'. Its ludicrous that we have 2 ways to legally te the knot available to us, and hetrosexuals don't.
Last edited:
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
Of course there is - homophobia is alive and well.
Jackobi
swallows anything
Cameron is conveniently ignoring the fact that the majority of Tories voted against the bill:
"The votes are in, and the same sex marriage bill has passed its third reading in the Commons by 366 votes to 161. Of those voting no, 134 were Tories (including 7 abstentions), with 14 Labour MPs, four Lib Dems, eight Democratic Unionists and an independent."
STRAIGHT YES VOTE (117 Tory MPs)
STRAIGHT NO VOTE (127 Tory MPs)
http://www.conservativehome.com/par...age-bill-but-it-still-passes-the-commons.html
Last edited:
certainly, but as an electoral issue?
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
I think so. As is racism.
Although both have to be presented in a more subtle way (apart from those parties trying to appeal to the extreme of the extreme right) now than they did even 25 years ago.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
It does, and has done for thousands of years. I suspect that originally it was to ensure that the children you were feeding were yours.
nice. those dirty stone-age slags, eh?
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
In a way, it is a bit insulting, the whole concept I mean. It is defining people by their sexuality, rather than as people. Gay and lesbian people have a hell of a lot more to them than their sexuality, same as heterosexuals. You don't hear someone commenting 'there's a heterosexual couple'.
Similar threads
