All the current fuss in parliament over gay marriage has left me feeling somewhat confused. My chosen woman and I ‘got hitched’ at a registry office in summer ’76 in what I understood to be a ‘civil ceremony’; we didn’t want to bother any of the available sky-fairies, apart from which, we didn’t have the money.
I believe that, for the past few years, a gay couple could go through basically the same civil ceremony as my woman and I (I don’t think I understand the terms ‘wife’ and ‘marriage’ any more) ………….. so, what exactly is the problem?
Can you only be described as ‘married’ if you have undertaken a church service? If the stumbling block is ‘religious recognition’, then surely that’s up to the church to decide on its own rules, not the government. Why is parliament wasting its time on this?
|
A marriage confers certain rights (financial etc) upon the partners in the marriage which a civil partnership does not. A marriage can be performed in a civil ceremony, or in a religious ceremony. A civil parternship can not. Therefore, there are evident inequalities in law depending upon whether a couple is mixed sex or single sex, an Parliament is seeking to redress this inequality. Religions will not be obliged to marry people they don't want to, as is currently the case (e.g. Catlicks refusing to marry divorcees).
Those who are wasting their time and breath are the religious and the conservative (deliberate small "c") who don't (want to) get it.
ETA: Oh. And yes. You are, of course, married. Under new legislation the right to do so will no longer be withheld from homosexual people. Good.
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 6 Feb 13 at 12:13
|
Its all academic, the CoE is exempted from the law, and no other place of worship will allow it, (the law gives them the option to refuse) so Its a meaningless law.
Dragged the senile in attitude and out of touch tory members into the open tho.
|
I remember during the hot summer of 1975, the water shortage meant that water was likely to be rationed. We lived in the Midlands then and the local water authority advertised saying "share a bath to save water"
The local Tory MP went apoplectic saying it was a disgrace etc..
Nearly 40 years later, I read comments from Tory MPs which suggest they have learned nothing from the past and are still living in the Victorian age.
|
>> I remember during the hot summer of 1975, the water shortage meant that water was
>> likely to be rationed.
>>
That were 1976 madf, remember it well as we got married that year.
|
"That were 1976 madf, remember it well as we got married that year."
And, after the August Bank Holiday, it widdled it down non-stop all autumn!.
|
So will civil partnerships continue to exist, as separate from marriage?
What will distinguish a civil ceremony (partnership) from a civil ceremony (marriage)?
Will existing civil partnerships be automatically upgraded to marriage, or will that require an additional test, like trailers?
|
>> Its all academic, the CoE is exempted from the law, and no other place of
>> worship will allow it, (the law gives them the option to refuse) so Its a
>> meaningless law.
>>
>> Dragged the senile in attitude and out of touch tory members into the open tho.
>>
As I understand it some sects, the Quakers for certain and possibly liberal Synagogues will offer same sex weddings. Other non-conformist churches can do their own thing too. Methodists might but I doubt the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) will wed the only gay couple on Lewis!!
|
>> Its all academic, the CoE is exempted from the law, and no other place of
>> worship will allow it, (the law gives them the option to refuse) so Its a
>> meaningless law.
Quakers will, and I would have expected nothing else.
There was an interview yesterday with the Recording Clerk of the Society of Friends. The interviewer asked him whether Quaker ministers would be allowed to refuse, so he patiently explained that Quakers don't have ministers.
My parents had a Quaker marriage. The couple make their vows to each other and the meeting witnesses it. My parents' marriage certificate is a great scroll of a thing that bears the signatures of those present.
|
|
Interesting piece in the Guardian today about Quakers. During the period when the CofE had a near monopoly on marriage Quaker ceremonies were not recognised.
|
|
Oh right, yes fine. The country is full of gay quakers queuing up to be married. As I said, its academic.
|
>> Oh right, yes fine. The country is full of gay quakers queuing up to be
>> married.
It soon will be ;-)
|
>> The country is full of gay quakers queuing up to be married.
Presumably they're queuing at the back door?
|
I am labouring under a different understanding to Alanović.
>>A marriage confers certain rights (financial etc) upon the partners in the marriage which a
>> civil partnership does not.A marriage confers certain rights (financial etc) upon the partners
>> in the marriage which a civil partnership does not.
I don't think so - according to the Grauniad,
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 gave same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities similar to those in a civil marriage. Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors. There is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a civil partnership.
Any practical differences in the ceremonies?
Until now it has been banned for civil partnership ceremonies to include religious readings, music or symbols and forbidden for them to take place in 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.
Any other practical differences?
Civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled.
So homosexual couples can already get the same rights. It just isn't called marriage, presumably for the very good reason that it isn't.
Civil partnership ceremonies are already referred to as 'marriages' in conversation, presumably because it's easier to say Emma and Gemma are getting married, than "civilly partnered".
I don't think that amounts to a change in the meaning though, any more than the meanings of "husband" and "wife" are changed by cohabiting couples (of any sex) referring to each other or themselves as such.
There should be no need to do anything, except perhaps to permit religious organisations to conduct marriages.
TBH I don't care about it much one way or the other, but I do care about the wasted time, effort and debate on this pathetic bit of grandstanding when there are real things to worry about like hundreds of people being knocked off in hospitals through neglect, government overspending, unemployment, total lack of coordination on infrastructrure, billions wasted on "defence", you name it.
Yes Haywain you are married. We also had a Register Office job.
|
>>TBH I don't care about it much one way or the other, but I do care about the wasted time, effort and debate on this pathetic bit of grandstanding when there are real things to worry about like hundreds of people being knocked off in hospitals through neglect, government overspending, unemployment, total lack of coordination on infrastructrure, billions wasted on "defence", you name it.
>>
I tend to agree.
As a result I think the voting at the next general election will be "interesting".
"The economy, stupid" said James Carville
|
Its a shame the government haven't put more effort into changing the law to give more rights to people living together who aren't married but think they have the same rights under the misnomer of 'common law husband/wife'.
People share property, have kids, buy stuff for their homes, buy a car and have other shared financial commitments yet have few rights when co-habiting compared to those of a same sex who make it all official by having a ceremony.
Unfortunately our country has a history of laws made whilst the church was (and still is) powerful and influential, yet is in many ways socially out of touch.
|
>> I tend to agree.
>> As a result I think the voting at the next general election will be "interesting".
>>
>> "The economy, stupid" said James Carville
>>
It won't have the slightest effect on the next election, still at least two years off. All the polls I've seen suggest the public are either in favour or couldn't care less and those people who do object have nowhere to go anyway as Labour and the Lib Dems are strongly in favour.
I don't see what the fuss was about, if gays want to get married good luck to them, it doesn't have the slightest impact on my life. As for the church, they have bitterly opposed divorce, contraception, the decriminalising of homosexuality and abortion when they were going through and if they had their way (particularly the lot I was baptised into, the catholics) sex outside marriage would incur a long prison sentence.
|
In a rational society we would have two choices equally available to male/female and same gender couples.
Marriage with the Bells and Whistles of a ceremony for the public affirmation of comittment before your friends and, if you have one, your God.
Civil Partnership for those who simply want to regularise their affairs and legitimise their children with the minimum of fuss.
|
I have lived through it all before.
The world keeps changing and those of a conservative (small "c" ) bent oppose it.
After 20 years you wonder what the fuss was about.
Now about drugs...:-)
|
>> Now about drugs...:-)
>>
>>
>>
Unfortunately it will be a long time before someone has the courage to admit that the "War on drugs" is unwinable so we might as well legalise it, tax it and control the quality. Ditto prostitution.
|
>>before someone has the courage to admit that the "War on drugs" is unwinable
There has never yet been a situation won by attempting to control supply. Not the war on drugs, not prohibition, not nuffin.
All it does is to drive up price.
Attack demand, if you really must attack at all.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 6 Feb 13 at 14:15
|
>> Attack demand, if you really must attack at all.
Tax supply.
|
>> >> Attack demand, if you really must attack at all.
>>
>> Tax supply.
Agreed. Taxing supply does indeed address demand, both by limiting it and profiting from it.
But have you noticed after years of the more enlightened wishing the authorities would apply the tobacco approach to other drugs, the situation is now moving towards taking the other drugs approach for tobacco.
That's not going to go anywhere good.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 6 Feb 13 at 14:26
|
"
Attack demand, if you really must attack at all."
You mean jail actors, actresses and MPs, bankers and other people for drug taking.
That would undermine society's faith in the purity of the Establishment...
You are joking: never going to happen when MPs' children start being jailed.. (See Jack Straw's son)
Rampant hypocrisy, and £ billions are a price worth paying to protect the children of MPs. (see C Huhne as an example of that outlook. Also MPs' expenses)
|
Yeah, that's what I said, mindlessly target high profile individuals in a sensationalist manner.
Most perceptive of you.
|
>>and legitimise their children <<
Here we are talking about moving to a modern, inclusive marriage situation and yet there are still people talking the language of the 50's when it comes to children with unmarried parents. What nasty terminology to be using in 2013.
|
>> Here we are talking about moving to a modern, inclusive marriage situation and yet there
>> are still people talking the language of the 50's when it comes to children with
>> unmarried parents. What nasty terminology to be using in 2013.
Stu,
I could not think of any better term than the proper legal one. The usual slang word, bas..... would be nasty.
I'm not married to the mother of my children and it doesn't matter to anybody.
Not all are that fortunate and I suspect it might affect abilty to inherit, at least on intestacy.
|
I took the poster's use of the word "legitimise" to mean regularising the legal status of the children in relation to the people responsible for their care and upbringing.
If children have no "legitimite" parents then they would just wander the streets living rough until some oprganisation takes them into care.
Some people - parents, couple, whatever they are called, have to be legally recognised as the responsible adults, and those people have to be aware of their responsibilities.
Any society needs that to be clear, even one not living in the 1950s.
|
|
Reminds me of a song of the Kinks Lola it's a mixed up crazy world..
|
>>Reminds me of a song of the Kinks Lola it's a mixed up crazy world<<
Or, a pub down the Old Kent Rd. where I used to live in sowf lunden ~ The World Turned Upside Down.
|
The World Turned Upside Down....
I used to frequent that area in the 60's Dog with my mate from Peckham who was a drummer.......
..... You ever go to the Montague Arms down in New Cross Gate - with Jimmy Jones that most PC of comedians????
|
>> You ever go to the Montague Arms down in New Cross Gate<<
Nay retpocop, I got 'into' the hippy scene in the late 60's and so would take the tube (or No 12 bus) to Leicester Sq. station to spend 8 nights a week in The Crown or The Frigate.
I used to go in the Apples & Pears and The Temple bar in South London now and again, but it wasn't really my scene, man, and besides ... there were fights most Friday & Saturday nights!
|
>> Or, a pub down the Old Kent Rd. where I used to live in sowf
>> lunden ~ The World Turned Upside Down.
I tried to start a Monopoly Board pub crawl there one (late) morning. Wasn't open. Headed further down the Old Kent Road and found another - The Green Man I seem to recall. Sounds like it was probably for the best.
|
>>The Green Man I seem to recall<<
Yep, been in most pubs down the Ole Kent Rd. including www.london-se1.co.uk/restaurants/info/760/thomas-a-becket where splash-it-on-all-over used to go.
My ole mum and dad used to drink in the Green Man c1940's and my mums dad (a roofer) tried to drink the place dry in the 1930's.
|
>>Stu,
I could not think of any better term than the proper legal one. The usual slang word, bas..... would be nasty.
I'm not married to the mother of my children and it doesn't matter to anybody.
Not all are that fortunate and I suspect it might affect abilty to inherit, at least on intestacy.<<
It is an old fashioned idea that a child needs to be 'legitimised' in the first place - you dont need to be married to stick your name on a birth certificate or make provision for your children in a will, both acts which do far more to recognise your child as your own than whether or not you marry their mother.
If you divorce the mother the children do not become illegitimate either, so it doesnt amount to a hill of beans really, it is a stupid term - the idea that people will genuinely look to marry so their kids are legitimate legally is an odd idea in a world where it is a wonder anyone has children within wedlock anymore :-)
|
Thanks, for the Grauniad piece, Manatee - it more or less says what I suspected was the case all along i.e. that a gay couple already had the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Has anything significantly moved on from this?
The latest edition of Private Eye delivered this morning just about sums it up with a cartoon on p5. Nero is fiddling away with Rome ablaze in the background and another toga-clad figure is saying to him "How can I put it? It's as if you were trying to legislate about gay marriage while ignoring the more urgent problems facing you"
|
>> "How can I put it? It's as if
>> you were trying to legislate about gay marriage while ignoring the more urgent problems facing
>> you"
See, I don't get this argument. The government does not need to spend all available Parliamentary time discussing the economy and other important, urgent issues. They discuss what they need to discuss, and implement the policies they agree on, and move on to other matters. There's time and space for many things. They can't just go round and round in circles on the things you consider most important, decisions have to be made, and then you move on. Parliament is there to manage all kinds of legislation which affect all of our lives. If they were legislating for something in your direct interest, I'm sure you'd not be saying "No, no, please! Never mind me! The economy, the economy! Europe! Afghanistan!".
|
True but there comes a point (timewise) where it's just argueing some academic point, particularly if it's; off little interest to people and/or affects a small number of people. I'm not bothered either way about this particular issue and I don't know how much time has been spent discussing it.
I'm talking in general, but there are times when a line should be drawn, as above I don't think people would like a huge amount of time spent on side pet issues that achieve little.
|
But that's how Parliament operates. Time is made available for minority stuff, private members' bills, all that sort of jazz, and all sorts get discussed/achieved adding up to a more balanced legislature for everyone, not just always the "majority" interest. This way, something greater than the "majority" interest is achieved, i.e. adding minority interest to the major stuff adds up to an even greater "major". It allows us, as a society, to allow for minority needs to be addressed, which is surely a hallmark of civilisation.
ETA: It's not a huge amount of time which is spent on these things, it's just that some of them get huge amounts of coverage because DAILY MAIL ATTITUDES, leading that publication's readers (and others, I know, I'm being cheeky), believing that the government is only interested in gay marriage and is doing nothing to stop brown people coming here and stealing our benefits.
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 6 Feb 13 at 16:49
|
>>believing that the government is only interested in gay marriage and is doing nothing to stop brown people coming here and stealing our benefits.
I didn't mention that. I wouldn't have mentioned it had it occurred to me, as it would have handed you a stick to beat me with, but truthfully it didn't.
Noted that you got the stick out anyway.
|
>> I didn't mention that. I wouldn't have mentioned it had it occurred to me, as
>> it would have handed you a stick to beat me with, but truthfully it didn't.
I realise that and didn't mean to imply that you did. I was speaking generally. Apologies for any misunderstanding
>> Noted that you got the stick out anyway.
It wasn't pointed at you personally.
|
>> But that's how Parliament operates. Time is made available for minority stuff, private members' bills,
>> all that sort of jazz, and all sorts get discussed/achieved adding up to a more
>> balanced legislature for everyone, not just always the "majority" interest. This way, something greater than
>> the "majority" interest is achieved, i.e. adding minority interest to the major stuff adds up
>> to an even greater "major". It allows us, as a society, to allow for minority
>> needs to be addressed, which is surely a hallmark of civilisation.
I'm not saying it should be nil, just question is it worth the time? Have we a better society, has the law that has (will be) passed added to the country and it's people, worth the time and political effort?
|
It does seem fairly simple though;
All couples to have the same rights within a civil "partnership", "marriage" or whatever you want to call it.
The various religions carry on doing what they feel is within their belief system.
Not a lot of room for controversy really.
|
"All couples to have the same rights within a civil "partnership", "marriage" or whatever you want to call it."
But isn't this what already exists? What has changed?
|
>> "All couples to have the same rights within a civil "partnership", "marriage" or whatever you
>> want to call it."
>>
>> But isn't this what already exists? What has changed?
>>
At least in the view of those to whom it matters it doesn't already exist. CP is seen as a slightly grubby second best.
As I've said already I'd like both available to all but today Cameron has specifically ruled out CP for mixed sex couples.
|
>> I'm talking in general, but there are times when a line should be drawn, as
>> above I don't think people would like a huge amount of time spent on side
>> pet issues that achieve little.
Yesterday was the Second Reading Debate, the main opportunity for the house to discuss the principle of the bill. It began at 12:44 after and hour or so of Justice questions. The main division was at 19:00. There was some susidiary debate about timings for the next stage etc which took another hour.
Next is the Committee stage when the bill is considered line by line. That will finiash by 12 March. Third reading and then to Lords. Presumably they want it done and dusted before the session ends in May.
|
I'd be inclined to agree with you Alanović but this looks like a distraction to be - I can't see any pressing reason for it to be done now and it seems to be creating some controversy. Granted the fact that I think it is trivial grandstanding colours my judgement.
One explanation might be that's it's hard to find things to agree on as a coalition.
|
The very cynical view is that it's part of a bigger plan.
The so called triple (or is it quadruple?) lock preventing the CofE celebrating same sex marriages will be challenged to the Supreme Court and on to Strasbourg on Convention grounds. The ECHR will find that it does indeed contravene Articles X,Y & Z.
Cameron then goes into the 2015 election with the resultant wind in his sails and a manifesto committing to withdrawal from the Convention.
|
>>The very cynical view is that it's part of a bigger plan.
He doesn't seem that clever to me.
|
>> He doesn't seem that clever to me.
He's lazy but more clever than he'd have us beleive.
|
|
Hes clever, but not resourceful or single minded enough. He is however hamstrung by the current coalition.
|
Isn't the fuss about churches doubling as registry offices, leading Christians of traditionalist views to fear that they may be forced to perform gay marriages against their will?
Like others here I don't see that it will make any difference. Gays are already equal before the law and no amount of legislation will make them 'the same' as the other 90 per cent of society, if only in the sense that they can't combine their genes to produce offspring even by going to inordinate technological lengths.
To a rational person the church or state institution of marriage is purely optional anyway. The essential thing in a life-partnership, especially when it doesn't go as planned, is the understanding between the couple and their trustworthiness under stress. Difficulties up to and including separation can be dealt with in a civilised manner or, er, not. Witness the Macbeths - sorry, Huhnes - and a host of marriages between rich idiots and dumb grasping blondes, rich carphounds and their oppressed wives, etc etc. There are shysters who make a rich living from people's immorality and unreliability.
Caveat emptor innit?
|
|
If discussing things like gay marriage keeps the government away from meddling with the economy it's a great shame the last lot didn't spend their entire 19 years debating the subject.
|
>> Like others here I don't see that it will make any difference. Gays are already
>> equal before the law and no amount of legislation will make them 'the same' as
>> the other 90 per cent of society
90%? Albeit from Wikipedia:
2011
The UK Census gives the following figure 1.1 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 545,000 adults, identified themselves as Gay or Lesbian, 0.4 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 220,000 adults, identified themselves as Bisexual
|
As I understand it the current law specifically excludes people of opposite sexes from becoming civil partners. Surely for everyone to be equal (which seems to be what the government wants), civil partnership should be open to all, and not just limited to couples of the same sex.
Of course, some are more equal than others.
|
Am I married....... or not?
good question.. i got married in 1993, left the family home in 1998
havnt seen the misses since....am i still married or could she have
divorced me in my abcence?
if i die who gets the corpse to bury ... my ex or my present partner of 14 years?
|
>> Am I married....... or not?
>>
>> good question.. i got married in 1993, left the family home in 1998
>> havnt seen the misses since....am i still married or could she have
>> divorced me in my abcence?
>> if i die who gets the corpse to bury ... my ex or my present
>> partner of 14 years?
I would have thought that, knowing the circumstances you are in, you would have ensured that your current partner is fully legally protected (will, joint names on accounts and legal docs etc) and your death wishes are noted.
A prudent man might even have initiated divorce proceedings...
|
|
After smoking some creative tobacco, my son's friend got married on a bouncy castle at a pop festival. This summer, he is due to marry again - 'properly' this time. We are hoping that his bouncy castle bride doesn't come looking for him!
|
>> 90%? Albeit from Wikipedia:
>> 2011
>> The UK Census gives the following figure 1.1 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 545,000 adults, identified themselves as Gay or Lesbian, 0.4 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 220,000 adults, identified themselves as Bisexual
Yeah. I remembered an allegation by the GLF or something that ten per cent of the population was effectively gay. Sounded excessive to me, but to avoid accusations of homophobia I went with it.
|
>> Under new legislation the right to do so will no longer be withheld from homosexual people.
The right to marry has never been withheld from homosexuals. They would, probably, prefer not to marry a partner of the opposite sex. I heard that bore Tatchell going on about them being discriminated against. They're no more discriminated than me, although I'm unlikely to ever want to marry someone of the same gender.
|
The idea that redefining marriage as something not related to the sex of the participants creates absolute equality seems to be the clarion call of the reformers.
Here is something that passed me by until I read the blow by blow account of the debate in the DT -
14.01 Nadine Dorries, the MP suspended from the Tory Party over her appearance on ITV's I'm a Celebrity, objects to the bill on the grounds that it does not require faithfulness of same-sex couples. This is because adultery will not be a reason for dissolution of a same-sex marriage.
If there is no requirement of faithfulness, what is a marriage?
|
The continuation of this argument is that if a marriage between same sex couples excludes adultery as a ground for divorce then it is is inevitable that adultery as a ground for divorce between couples of different sexes will challenged in the courts.
The subject of consanguinity does not seem to have been mentioned much either. Will a man be able to marry his brother? If not why not?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 7 Feb 13 at 09:14
|
|
I wonder how long it'll be before a man will be able to marry his horse.
|
>> I wonder how long it'll be before a man will be able to marry his horse.
I thought Charles already had ;)
|
|
Most men are married to Dogs dog.(only kidding) >:)
|
>> Most men are married to Dogs dog.(only kidding) >:)
OO-er... do you think this is another online proposal Perro?
|
>>Most men are married to Dogs dog.(only kidding) >:)<<
I've no doubt Diane isn't one Dutchie, no more than Ann is, and anyway ... when are you going to make that vegetarian curry I gave y'all the recipe for?
:}
|
|
You have to write the recipe down again Dog.Never got round to it.Regards to Ann tell her I behave.
|
The problem is that adultery is defined as sexual intercourse. It's nigh on impossible to find a comparable act between same sex couples. And don't start snickering about bums. My gay colleagues tell me that anal is a minority pursuit.
It's not going to make any real differnce as any form of 'playing away' can be subsumed into unreasonable behaviour.
The act will barr consanguinity. Apart from the public policy issues fathers marrying sons would be an inheritance tax loophole.
|
>>
>> The act will barr consanguinity. Apart from the public policy issues fathers marrying sons would
>> be an inheritance tax loophole.
>>
An old tax dodge is to marry your late father's mistress:
"Step-relatives may marry provided they are at least 21 years of age. The younger of the couple must at no time before the age of 18 have lived in the same household as the older person."
|
"It's not going to make any real differnce as any form of 'playing away' can be subsumed into unreasonable behaviour."
In that case I think you would have to abolish adultery as ground for divorce on the basis of equality between "gay" and "straight" marriage. If it isn't abolished expect a court case some time soon.
As for consanguinity where are the public policy issues in marrying your uncle or brother (No Norfolk jokes please !). Surely the public policy issue behind consanguinity is to do with the effect of in-breeding on the children. No possibility of children, surely no public policy issue. Again expect a court case.
|
It all gets very complicated doesn't it?
I always thought that a table was a table, but now someone has sat on it and is making out a case for it to be called a chair.
Thus it is with marriage........
|
|
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
|
Alanovic>>A marriage confers certain rights (financial etc) upon the partners in the marriage which a civil partnership does not.
Name one. Bet you can't - other than the right to get married in a church (but not the C of E).
Anyway, who cares. This debate makes neither side look good. Both sides throw abuse at the other, and come up with irrelevant skewed surveys 'proving' they are right. To those of us who think it entirely irrelevant, the two sides look like a load of toddlers.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 7 Feb 13 at 15:01
|
>>
>> Anyway, who cares. This debate makes neither side look good. Both sides throw abuse at
>> the other, and come up with irrelevant skewed surveys 'proving' they are right. To those
>> of us who think it entirely irrelevant, the two sides look like a load of
>> toddlers.
>>
err I take exception to the "toddlers" bit .. Toddlers know no better. Adults do.
I can think of a more suitable word, unfit for consumption... :-)
|
>> Name one. Bet you can't - other than the right to get married in a
>> church (but not the C of E).
Pension rights are not the the same.
jaekaygoesforth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/differences-between-civil-partnerships.html
|
|
My wifes pension rights are the same had she been just a civil partner.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 7 Feb 13 at 16:45
|
>> My wifes pension rights are the same had she been just a civil partner.
Depends on the employer and scheme rules I think.
The Civil Service scheme originally only provided survivor benefits for those married However, around 2002/3 it was restructured and a new 'Premium' scheme created. This accumulated benefits in 60ths (rather than 80ths) and provided a partner pension at the cost of higher contributions.
My gay colleague converted so as to secure a 'widows' pension for his partner. Subsequent legislation and their CP meant he'd have the same cover anyway as 'marraige' was interpreted as covering Cp's.
I opted to move too as Mrs B and i are not married.
|
Ah, the arbitrary way that the teachers' pension fund takes people paying in the same amount but pays out more to those who are married than those who are not says more about defined benefit pensions than about the civil partnership laws.
And that you would have to get same-sex-married in Portugal if you appeared as UK civil partners says more about Portugal than about the UK. Just because you get same-sex married in the UK doesn't mean that the United Arab Emirates will recognise your position, does it? This is in fact a very good argument against interfering with what is clearly understood worldwide as marriage (man + woman) and has been so for millennia.
But hang on, in Arabia you can marry four women. How does that fit with two lesbians going to Portugal. There will never be a one-size-fits-all solution for an international problem.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 7 Feb 13 at 17:02
|
What will happen in the first lesbian divorce case?
How will both of them get three quarters of everything?
|
I like the one about "Divorced Barbie"...
It's a real bargain because you get with it, absolute free, Ken's house, Ken's car, Ken's boat, Ken's pension...
|
Am I married....... or not? - Alanovich
