NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm

Cool. It was a pretty inevitable development - nobody apart from the most bigoted opposes gay rights here, and I hadn't even heard any debate about this issue before. Plus, because Britain is pretty secular, the difference between civil partnerships and marriages isn't as significant.

Nifty. Does being married make a big tax difference in the U.K.? I imagine we should have gay marriage in the U.S. eventually.

A few of our friends are getting married, and we've been drafted to help with planning, invitations, and all that. After tying 200 gold lace ribbons onto little red (excuse me, burgundy) cards, I don't think anyone should get married..

See? THAT'S why some British bloke got run over yestoday. Bloody heathens. If England had horrorcanes, I'd blame them on teh sinful homos.

See? THAT'S why some British bloke got run over yestoday. Bloody heathens. If England had horrorcanes, I'd blame them on teh sinful homos.

The Sinful Homos are an underrated band, and I wish you'd give them a break.

So, what happens if I marry my boyfriend in UK and go to one of the US states where same-sex marriage is illegal? Will I be extradited? Imprisoned? Stoned?

Congrats Britain, anyway. Finally, we can welcome you in the circle of civiliced nations ;)

yeah there were a lot of jokes about how the first gay marrige would be in northen ireland (they have to wait less time to get married) and wether this would make ian paislys mind explode

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm

Cool. It was a pretty inevitable development - nobody apart from the most bigoted opposes gay rights here, and I hadn't even heard any debate about this issue before. Plus, because Britain is pretty secular, the difference between civil partnerships and marriages isn't as significant.

Congratulations for all the british, although I think they're not going far enough 'cause it's not marrieage, it's a "civil partnership". If they're getting the same rights and obligations, it should be called marriage.
I don't know if it allows to adopt children as a couple, as the spanish law does 'cause here in Spin it's not a new way of recognizing a relationship but a broader meaning of marriage, civil, of course.

yeah there were a lot of jokes about how the first gay marrige would be in northen ireland (they have to wait less time to get married) and wether this would make ian paislys mind explode

He could crank out the old "Save Ulster from Sodomy" campaign again.

He could crank out the old "Save Ulster from Sodomy" campaign again.
Psh! I bet his facade would crumble & he'd be the first gay to marry.

Are there any plans for Britain to become the 3rd country to have gay adoption as well? (Just like to boast about my own country: Belgium introduced gay adoption last Thursday, the 2nd country to do so...)

yes its funny its legal first in the most theocratic part of britain

Congratulations for all the british, although I think they're not going far enough 'cause it's not marrieage, it's a "civil partnership". If they're getting the same rights and obligations, it should be called marriage.
I don't know if it allows to adopt children as a couple, as the spanish law does 'cause here in Spin it's not a new way of recognizing a relationship but a broader meaning of marriage, civil, of course.

I'm an atheist and a proponent of civil and political rights, but I don't think that any government should 'force' any church to perform what is, by all definition, a religious ceremony. Homosexuals have the legal rights and taxation breaks they wanted now. If they want more than that, if they want a religious 'marriage', then they need to start petitioning the church, not the government.

Are there any plans for Britain to become the 3rd country to have gay adoption as well? (Just like to boast about my own country: Belgium introduced gay adoption last Thursday, the 2nd country to do so...)

I thought we did :-/

Britain Parliament OKs Gay Adoptions
.c The Associated Press LONDON (AP)

Britain's upper chamber of Parliament voted Tuesday to lift a ban on unmarried and gay couples adopting children, reversing its earlier defeat of the legislation. The House of Lords approval came after the House of Commons voted for the measure, meaning it now is almost certain to become law. It will make Britain the fifth European country to allow gay couples to adopt along with Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and the Netherlands. South Africa became the first African country to let same sex couples legally adopt children with a Sept. 10 court ruling. Under British law, single heterosexuals and homosexuals may adopt children but unmarried and gay couples may not. The government says changing the law will help thousands of children currently awaiting adoption. Opponents say only marriage provides the stable environment children need. The Lords - mostly appointed to their legislative posts - are traditionally more conservative than the House of Commons and defeated the bill last month. The peers' powers are limited, but they can amend and delay legislation put to them by the elected Commons members. The Conservative leader in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde, said he was disappointed by the vote. ``I hope that in the fervor to promote more adoption outside marriage the needs of vulnerable children for a stable, lifelong background will still be remembered,'' he said. The government's health secretary, Alan Milburn, said ``as a result of tonight's vote, many children in care institutions will be able to hope for a life out of care and in a stable and loving family.'' 11/05/02 16:21 EST

hoorah for progress!

I'm an atheist and a proponent of civil and political rights, but I don't think that any government should 'force' any church to perform what is, by all definition, a religious ceremony.Eh, no it isn't. It's commonly associated with religion, but the two are, historically speaking, not inherently connected. In our present day societies, civil, atheist marriage ceremonies are performed every day across the globe.

Homosexuals have the legal rights and taxation breaks they wanted now. If they want more than that, if they want a religious 'marriage', then they need to start petitioning the church, not the government.That's what has happened, right? Last time I checked, noone was legislating faith.
Please keep in mind that some religious institutions want to perform homosexual marriages, so discrimination against homosexuals is also legislating church ritual & dogma.

Eh, no it isn't. It's commonly associated with religion, but the two are, historically speaking, not inherently connected. In our present day societies, civil, atheist marriage ceremonies are performed every day across the globe.

I assume he meant allowing homosexuals to get married in a church. If not I'm sorry.

yeah there were a lot of jokes about how the first gay marrige would be in northen ireland (they have to wait less time to get married) and wether this would make ian paislys mind explode

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO I mean yes
Ian Paisley always reminds me of that bloke from Dibley.

It doesn't really take much for Paisley to explode (I wonder when he is due to get decommisioned)

as for the same sex civil marriage YAY!!! good move,
Marriage doesn't really affect tax that much (infact at all if you are PAYE as far as I could tell)

Nice. Way to go UK. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. The (sorta) "separate but equal" thing is still bullshit, of course, but hopefully it will only be a matter of time before everyone gets the same thing.

This is good news of course. I wonder how many states now have simililar legislation. Does anybody know?

'bout bloody time. suprised it took so long.

So, what happens if I marry my boyfriend in UK and go to one of the US states where same-sex marriage is illegal? Will I be extradited? Imprisoned? Stoned?

Congrats Britain, anyway. Finally, we can welcome you in the circle of civiliced nations ;)

What do you mean "finally?"

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO I mean yes
Ian Paisley always reminds me of that bloke from Dibley.

It doesn't really take much for Paisley to explode (I wonder when he is due to get decommisioned)

as for the same sex civil marriage YAY!!! good move,
Marriage doesn't really affect tax that much (infact at all if you are PAYE as far as I could tell)

Your income affects your tax breaks much more than your marriage status in Britain today. In fact, its more desirable in tax terms to stay single than it is to be a middle-class family technically.

I know the issue is a bit of a hot potato on these forums, but I think it's great. The governments of our countries in the West always witter on about equal rights and freedoms, but often they do not live up to these ideals that they espouse. This is a step in the right direction.

Good luck any ladies and gents getting married as a result of the new law :)

interesting point,
Except for iceland, all the countries (in europe) that have legalised Gay Marriage are monarchies of one form or another.

Long live the Kings and of course the Queens!!!

This is good news of course. I wonder how many states now have simililar legislation. Does anybody know?

Marriages between homosexuals are currently recognised in the Netherlands, Canada, Spain and Belgium. IIRC the US state of Massachusetts also recognises them, and south Africa is planning to do so next year.

Civil unions are recognised in many more countries; see wikipedia for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

So, what happens if I marry my boyfriend in UK and go to one of the US states where same-sex marriage is illegal? Will I be extradited? Imprisoned? Stoned?


No, but we'll rub lemon juice into your paper cuts.

No, but we'll rub lemon juice into your paper cuts.

We'll make you have sex with Janet Reno until you barf. Shouldn't take long. :p

this map shows how far things still have to go.

MAP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laws_on_homosexuality.PNG)

and of course how far things have come so far

I assume he meant allowing homosexuals to get married in a church. If not I'm sorry.
Like it was already said, some religious denominations want to perform gay marriages.

It's discrimination against their faith to deny them that right.

Good for the United Kingdom, though there are still only four countries that permit gay marriage. This isn't that, but it's a step in the right direction.

Good for the United Kingdom, though there are still only four countries that permit gay marriage. This isn't that, but it's a step in the right direction.
Indeed, and YAY for Canada, the world's largest gay-marriagefest of the world! :p

Marriages between homosexuals are currently recognised in the Netherlands, Canada, Spain and Belgium. IIRC the US state of Massachusetts also recognises them, and south Africa is planning to do so next year.

Seriously, what does it tell the US when South Africa is ahead of them in civil rights? Have we fallen behind a bit? Just a little? *sigh*

Civil unions are recognised in many more countries; see wikipedia for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

Civil unions are a step in the right direction, but they aren't fully there. It was nice that black children had free schools to go to, but they weren't very good schools. It was probably better than nothing, but far from equal. As long as the institutions are kept separate, they are, by definition, unequal.

This one sort of passed me by totally… there was, if not debate, huge amounts of incendiary mud thrown in the US, but nothing here.

For legal purposes, civil union = marriage anyway. What's the fuss about it not being far enough? It's about as far as you can get.

I'm a Catholic, and to be honest I couldn't care less about gay civil unions. I don't give much of a toss about the moral fabric of society, since there isn't one.

This one sort of passed me by totally… there was, if not debate, huge amounts of incendiary mud thrown in the US, but nothing here.

For legal purposes, civil union = marriage anyway. What's the fuss about it not being far enough? It's about as far as you can get.

This is patently untrue. If the two were truly equal, they wouldn't have different regulations and different names. All treaties that use the term "marriage" would also apply to "civil unions". *All* rights and *all* regulations on each would be equal. Even in the linked article, a difference between the regulations on civil unions and marriages were pointed out.

At the moment, the best you can say is civil union ~ marriage. A civil union is equal to marriage in the same way that the black schools in the US were equal to the white schools. In other words, they are not.

This is patently untrue. If the two were truly equal, they wouldn't have different regulations and different names. All treaties that use the term "marriage" would also apply to "civil unions". *All* rights and *all* regulations on each would be equal. Even in the linked article, a difference between the regulations on civil unions and marriages were pointed out.

At the moment, the best you can say is civil union ~ marriage. A civil union is equal to marriage in the same way that the black schools in the US were equal to the white schools. In other words, they are not. White schools were better than black schools in very real and material ways. A civil union is no different to a marriage where the law applies. For all intents and purposes, the marriage contract given out by the government to normal couples is the same as a civil union.

White schools were better than black schools in very real and material ways. A civil union is no different to a marriage where the law applies. For all intents and purposes, the marriage contract given out by the government to normal couples is the same as a civil union.

Homosexual couples aren't "normal couples"? Good to know where your viewpoint lies.

Again, patently incorrect. There are LEGAL differences between them. One of these differences is the fact that treaties do not apply to them equally. Another (in the article) is that the regulations for how and where to obtain one are different. A marriage must be public, but a civil union does not have to be, as if they are saying, "You have more reason to hide, so you hide it." In some countries (and US states), civil unions are different enough that many straight couples are now trying to get them, as applying marriage laws to taxes can actually penalize some couples.

I have yet to see a single case in which civil unions were actually legally the same as marriages. When you find one, feel free to point it out.

Homosexual couples aren't "normal couples"? Good to know where your viewpoint lies. Homosexual couples are undeniably outside the norm - what is the ratio of homosexual couples to heterosexual couples?
In Chad, black skin is the norm. Does this make blacks any better?

And I thought that civil unions were marriages all but in name. Turns out I seem to be mistaken.

Seriously, what does it tell the US when South Africa is ahead of them in civil rights? Have we fallen behind a bit? Just a little? *sigh*

Gay marriage and civil-unions are not a litmus test for civil rights. You'll find that in other areas on the subject, South Africa is far, far behind the US, so your statement in the form of a question is flawed.

Gay marriage and civil-unions are not a litmus test for civil rights.

They are certainly a part of any such test.

You'll find that in other areas on the subject, South Africa is far, far behind the US, so your statement in the form of a question is flawed.

On this, you are correct. I meant to specifically refer to civil rights *in this area* and stated it too broadly.

Homosexual couples are undeniably outside the norm - what is the ratio of homosexual couples to heterosexual couples?

So we could have civil unions for couples where both members are blonde and marriages for "normal couples"? After all, the ratio of couples where both members are blonde to the rest is pretty low....

How about civil unions for couples with a greater than 10 year age difference and marriages for all "normal" couples?

How about civil unions for couples who are comprised of citizens from more than one country and marriages for all "normal" couples?

Homosexual couples are no more "outside the norm" than any of these types of couples. Does that mean we should start categorizing them differently as well?

So we could have civil unions for couples where both members are blonde and marriages for "normal couples"? After all, the ratio of couples where both members are blonde to the rest is pretty low....

How about civil unions for couples with a greater than 10 year age difference and marriages for all "normal" couples?

How about civil unions for couples who are comprised of citizens from more than one country and marriages for all "normal" couples?

Homosexual couples are no more "outside the norm" than any of these types of couples. Does that mean we should start categorizing them differently as well? You're making too much of the word "normal". I wasn't trying to mean anything by it, contrary to what you seem to think. Save your arguments, please… they don't apply. :0

Seriously, what does it tell the US when South Africa is ahead of them in civil rights? Have we fallen behind a bit? Just a little? *sigh*


I know what you mean.

And, England is a monarchy, WITH a state religion... it really doesn't seem right that the World's Greatest Democracy (TM) should be lagging so far behind....

What is the legal difference between a civil union and a marriage contract?

As far as i can see its pretty much identicle, except the latter brings images of churches up in peoples minds. Why are people not satisfied if a country adds Civil Unions and just doesnt call it marriage?!

I mean, for example, in California, as far as health insurance and inheritance rights go, im fairly certain that homosexual partnerships are treated identically to homosexual ones...

You're making too much of the word "normal". I wasn't trying to mean anything by it, contrary to what you seem to think. Save your arguments, please… they don't apply. :0

If you wouldn't equally apply to each and every case I listed, then it meant more than you now try and suggest.

Homosexual couples are undeniably outside the norm - what is the ratio of homosexual couples to heterosexual couples?
In Chad, black skin is the norm. Does this make blacks any better?

And I thought that civil unions were marriages all but in name. Turns out I seem to be mistaken.
The "norm" and "normal" are hardly the same.

While black skin is the norm in Chad, I don't think many of its inhabitants think of white skin as "abnormal". They think of it as "different".

That's what homosexuality is. A sexual orientation "different from the norm", not to be confused with "abnormal".

What is the legal difference between a civil union and a marriage contract?

You know, actually reading the thread before replying is usually a good idea.

As far as i can see its pretty much identicle, except the latter brings images of churches up in peoples minds.

Then you haven't really looked into it. Only marriages are covered by treaties. A person can get married in Britain and be assured that, should they move to the US, they will still be married. Civil unions do not apply.

In Britain, a marriage is required to be public. A civil union is not. It is as if they are telling homosexuals to keep their union in the closet.

In most countries and states that have adopted them, taxation and many other issues are different for civil unions and for marriages. Some of these issues are different enough that there are straight couples who wish to get civil unions instead of civil marriages, and homosexual couples who wish to get marriages instead of unions.

In any US state which adopts civil unions, the federal government still does not recognize them. They are not covered by any treaty with another country, and will only be recognized by those states which offer civil unions.

In no instance in which civil unions have been instituted are they legally equivalent to civil marriage. If they were, there would be no reason for different names in the first place.

I mean, for example, in California, as far as health insurance and inheritance rights go, im fairly certain that homosexual partnerships are treated identically to homosexual ones...

Surely you realize the fallacy you have made here? This statement is like me saying, "A gun license allows you to carry all weapons. After all, it lets you carry a .22 revolver or a hunting rifle."

There are many rights and regulations that are different between a California partnership and a marriage, some of them relating to the federal government and other states, some of them within the state laws themselves.

Yay ^^ Oh well, I plan on going to Sweden anyway, but hey if its allowed in the UK all the better. :D