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.” ///

[Peter Pedant]

Yes I did the evil thing -accessed the site - with a blankie over my head so noone would see - having subtracted 700 from 2000 and got 1300 .....

Civil partnership Eddie was only designed to give equal rights under the civil bit of the Marriage Act 1752 - the great reform that split marriage into religious and civil. This act solved the then problem in 1752 of marriages outside the Englican Church being invalid and THAT only mattered when people had things to leave each other in a will

and so... non consummation is NOT a ground for dissolving a civil partnership. and there's another one ....

[Peter Pedant]

and religious annulment.... ( is not a ground for dissolution ) I think

[sp1814]

EDDIE51/naomi24

(Sounds like then football results)

If a husband or wife in a straight marriage dies, then their surviving partner gets all their pension benefits. Even if they have only been married for a day.

If a partner from a CP dies, then the surviving partner is only eligible for pension contributions from 2005 onwards.

[Brenden]

And if one of a co-habiting partner dies they get nothing.

[pixie373]

That's fair enough, though, brenden. They can still write a Will.

[beso]

So a gay monarch and his partner would both be Kings?

[mushroom25]

nope, there can only be one king. a gay monarch's marriage partner would be only a consort - although there's no indication from the telegraph article what his official title would be.

[sp1814]

Brenden

Yes - because they haven't made a formal commitment to their relationship either by getting married or entering into civil partnership (has SUCH a romantic ring dunnit?)

[naomi24]

SP, I didn't realise that. The rules concerning pensions need to be changed then. Is that the only area in which there's irregularity?

[sp1814]

naomi24

I don't think a CP can be annulled, say - for non-consummation (indeed, I'm pretty sure that the definition of 'consummation' between gay couples has been agreed on for same sex marriages - because obviously, it's going to be different for two women / two men).

Other than that, the CP of a man being ennobled doesn't get a courtesy title.

Also, civil partnership ceremonies cannot include religious readings, music or symbols and they are forbidden from being held religious venues, regardless of the views of the building's owners.

In Scotland, which has its own legislation, some church parishes offer blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

[sp1814]

That should read:

hasn't been agreed on for same sex marriages

[ludwig]

I'll be honest, I'm bored with the whole gay marriage thing. I can't even work out whether it's a silly argument over ownership of a word, or a fundamental human rights issue.

Having said that, it's obvious that the legal discrepancies SP is pointing out need to be corrected, whatever it's called.

[naomi24]

I agree with Ludwig. We're back to the issue of words so I think we've come full circle on this discussion. How can the cp of a man being ennobled be given a courtesy title? What would it be? If he's knighted, we can hardly endow his partner with the title 'Lady'. I really think the legislators are meeting themselves coming back, as are the proponents of many of what seem to me to be impossible to meet requirements. Common sense has to prevail but people are tying themselves up in knots over this.

[sp1814]

naomi24

It'll be sorted.

The only people who are still mithering are the opponents of the law change. We will all get used to it pretty quickly, perhaps in the same way that those who opposed CPs soon got used to them.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// We will all get used to it pretty quickly, perhaps in the same way that those who opposed CPs soon got used to them. ///

The question that has to be asked is, "have they"?

[askyourgran]

There's no harm in plugging the gaps. Who's to say that in a few years time some noodle in the Royal family will demand their HRs to marry his partner being 'queen consort'. The fact that the next in line could be via the royal turkey basting brush would be a lot to ask for. I think the original civil partnership was sufficient, any rules for wills and pension rights etc could have been sorted out in that capacity.

[sp1814]

AOG

And the question has been answered, according to the the Office of National Statistics:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/population-trends-rd/population-trends/no--145--autumn-2011/ard-pt145-civil-partnerships.pdf