Same Sex Marriage, Oh What A Tangled Web Has Been Woven?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10654305/Men-banned-from-becoming-Queen-as-700-years-of-law-redrafted-ahead-of-gay-marriage.html

/// “This is yet another attack on those who opposed the redefinition of marriage, or believe that equality is not just about destroying the institutions that have helped to bind us together for centuries for the sake of political correctness.” ///

[China Doll]

I'm rather hoping he doesn't read this thread actually... ;o)

So I did understand correctly? I genuinely thought that that my response was just so obvious that I must have completely misunderstood the whole thing and my simplistic answer was about to be scorned and I was to be given the cyber equivelant of a tap on the head and told good effort but to perhaps leave the grown ups to talk now.

I nearly didn't even hit 'submit' cause I thought I was about to show myself up as a bit of a thickie.

[anotheoldgit]

China Doll

It must be my age but i am now more confused after reading your post than I was before.

[sunny-dave]

Storm/Teacup anyone?

Pass the ginger nuts

[China Doll]

AOG - Maybe there's something in the air. I'm properly confused as to why it's all possibly confusing or even an issue. It seems really logical to me.

[LazyGun]

Must be,AoG. Seems perfectly clear to me.

[mushroom25]

interestingly, 2 MPs proposed a clause in the succession bill that would have permitted the crown to be inherited by progeny (of a civil partnership)by adoption or artificial insemination.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0110/amend/pbc1102201m.pdf
since this didn't make it into the act as passed, it was probably in the "too difficult" box when set against the need to get it approved by all countries where the british monarch is head of state.

[Sqad]

AOG...it is quite simple really.....a wife can either be male or female and a husband can also be either male or female.............I think that I have got it.

[pixie373]

I think you can call people whatever you like, but in law they'll use a word like spouse instead of husband/wife.

[naomi24]

//it is quite simple really.....a wife can either be male or female and a husband can also be either male or female.............I think that I have got it.//

That’s how I understand it – not as Jack says, a pair of husbands or a pair of wives. I see no confusion there. It’s the misuse of a term that relates specifically to gender that I think will cause misunderstanding. ‘Spouse’ works in every instance.

[EDDIE51]

The 'gay' community is now working on getting sex change, transgender, dual sex, androgynous people and those with no sexual organs at all included in the same sex marriage rules. Just imagine the problems that will cause! We will have to define what is a 'man' and what is a 'woman' in exact scientific terms probably right down to the DNA sequence.
All because the gay community was not happy with their version of a life partner ship being called a civil union rather than 'marriage'.
.

[sp1814]

EDDIE51

What you wrote...it's all quite untrue.

[2sp_]

I really don't see why marriage can't just be between two consenting adults, regardless of their gender.

Surely when two people have found happiness with each other and want to make a commitment, it should be a thing to be celebrated?

[sp1814]

It would be interesting to see how many people who have protested against the Same Sex Marriage Act will put an equal amount if effort into getting divorce laws tightened up - you know...because marriage between man and woman ins sacred, so it would seem that the biggest threat to marriage is divorce.

I mean, what has the biggest societal impact? The thousands of divorces between straight couples every year, or the same handful of same sex weddings?

Bet they'll keep quiet about that.

I bet the Campaign For Marriage lobby won't campaign for that...weird.

[mushroom25]

//I really don't see why marriage can't just be between two consenting adults, regardless of their gender. Surely when two people have found happiness with each other and want to make a commitment, it should be a thing to be celebrated? //

2sp, the estate of marriage has been enshrined in law in a particular way for centuries - when the laws were framed, nobody - least of all the lawmakers of the time - could conceive of a marriage other than that which the law then permitted. and of course certain relationships were illegal, until comparatively recently. Unpicking centuries old laws (and to an extent, attitudes) was bound to take time and a great deal of effort. it's not so easy as telling people to just get over it and celebrate the variety of life.

[Khandro]

2sp; //Surely when two people have found happiness with each other and want to make a commitment, it should be a thing to be celebrated?//
I don't think many would contest that, and most went along with 'Civil Partnerships' which made allowance for anomalies regarding legal matters such as inheritance etc. but 'marriage' between members of the same gender is a step too far. What is the point, and why should we change our constitution for it?

[sp1814]

Khandro

We don't have a constitution, and civil partners don't enjoy the same rights as married people.

Also, CPs ghettoise gay people.

[naomi24]

SP, I don’t have a problem with gay people being married, but why do you say that civil partners don't enjoy the same rights as married people? I thought that was the whole point of introducing civil partnerships. Is the difference not simply in the title?

[EDDIE51]

Yes I also thought the idea of Civil Partnership was to give the same rights as marriage, how are the rights different?

[Peter Pedant]

O god I suppose without going there
they are also agonising about the Treason Act - and seducing the monarch's eldest daughter ?

Remember that the Treason Act 1345 was drafted because of the (treason) chaos that followed the death of Edward II in 1327 - erm who was gay innit ?