Gays only fountain.

[And?]

'No civil union for straight pair'.

A heterosexual couple have been refused permission to register for a civil partnership.

[...] civil partnerships can only be conducted by registrars, not members of the clergy, and the partnership cannot legally be called a "marriage".

Mr Freeman said: "It would be lovely to formalise our relationship but we are completely turned off by the whole institution of marriage because it discriminates against gay people."

He added: "We think gay people should be able to have a standard marriage and straight people should be able to have a civil partnership."

Miss Doyle said: "We want a choice and all other couples should also have a choice, irrespective of their sexuality."

Good people.

Anyway. What kind of George Eliot contrived irony is this? Have we really reached a societal juncture where we have cross-discriminatory policy enshrined solely for the purpose of the first-step to 'equality'? Should civil unions be for homosexuals only? Are they right to want this civil union, or does it undermine the fight for gay rights? Is the council right (apart from legally) to uphold their decision? What will the outcome be?

And to any non-gays: would you consider this kind of partnership? Would it be an act of defiance or general suspicion of the marriage institution?

I think it's funny. In a sad, weary sort of way.

[Joker]

Hopefully this will bring attention that there still isn't equal rights. I had a bit of a argument with my friends on Sunday night because they swore that civil partnerships = marriage.

English and Physics students > 2 Law students apparently.

The council shouldn't uphold their decision.

[Kevin]

I'm not going to pretend to be well read on this particular matter, as it doesn't really affect my life in any major way. However, I will be the first to say that it shouldn't be a huge deal if homosexuals should be denied marriage; if it is under the guise that religious institutions won't allow it because it's in violation of their beliefs. That's the way that I see marriage, irregardless of any definitions or statuses that define it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly aware that civil servants are permitted to marry people, as my dad is one of them. However, him, myself and all others in our family (yes, we're catholic) view marriage as something that should be done by a priest. I'm not here to preach that concept, but it's merely our view. Ergo, our view is that civil partnerships are essentially the same thing as marriages performed by judges, considering that they're still a partnership in the eyes of the law, however not in a religious sense.

Who the hell bloody cares if it's the same (or extremely similar) thing under a different name? If you're getting rights, it's progress, look at where you were in the past and look where you are now. Getting your knickers in a knot over trivial details such as the name of the union you're permitted to have isn't the way to go about equalizing your rights.

[Emperor]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Who the hell bloody cares if it's the same (or extremely similar) thing under a different name? If you're getting rights, it's progress, look at where you were in the past and look where you are now. Getting your knickers in a knot over trivial details such as the name of the union you're permitted to have isn't the way to go about equalizing your rights.

Yeah but in most instances it still isn't equal, simply because of the very fact that it's "extremely similar". 2000 ≠ 2001, even though they're pretty similar numbers. While we're at it, I want a drinking fountain for negroes again. They're still getting water, right?

[joshskates]

A heterosexual couple have been refused permission to register for a civil partnership.

[...] civil partnerships can only be conducted by registrars, not members of the clergy, and the partnership cannot legally be called a "marriage".

Mr Freeman said: "It would be lovely to formalise our relationship but we are completely turned off by the whole institution of marriage because it discriminates against gay people."

He added: "We think gay people should be able to have a standard marriage and straight people should be able to have a civil partnership."

Miss Doyle said: "We want a choice and all other couples should also have a choice, irrespective of their sexuality."

am i the only one who's never heard of a Gay Hetrosexual couple?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Emperor

Yeah but in most instances it still isn't equal, simply because of the very fact that it's "extremely similar". 2000 ≠ 2001, even though they're pretty similar numbers. While we're at it, I want a drinking fountain for negroes again. They're still getting water, right?

I completely understand your point, but part of my theory is that if marriage is something that is sanctified by religion, then they are well within their rights to deny it to anybody that they don't feel follows their beliefs. Especially considering that the name is pretty much what all the hubbub is about, if anything it would be logical to use the following logic.

All married couples are civilly joined. Not all civilly joined couples are married.

That's because when you are married, and you sign a marriage license, the law views you as joined. But when you get civilly joined by a judge, you don't sign a paper committing your union to a deity, you just say "Hey, we love eachother, wanna live with eachother, that's cool, yeah?"

Ok, so maybe it isn't that casual.

[steeper]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly aware that civil servants are permitted to marry people, as my dad is one of them. However, him, myself and all others in our family (yes, we're catholic) view marriage as something that should be done by a priest. I'm not here to preach that concept, but it's merely our view. Ergo, our view is that civil partnerships are essentially the same thing as marriages performed by judges, considering that they're still a partnership in the eyes of the law, however not in a religious sense.

So the impotent should have to have civil partnerships, since they can't be married under Catholic cannon law?

Originally Posted by Kevin

That's because when you are married, and you sign a marriage license, the law views you as joined. But when you get civilly joined by a judge, you don't sign a paper committing your union to a deity, you just say "Hey, we love eachother, wanna live with eachother, that's cool, yeah?"

Marriage licences don't mention anything about God.



Marriage within the catholic church is a matter for the catholic church to deal with. Marriage in general is a matter for politicians to deal with, because it's a pact between you, your partner, and the government.

The Pope doesn't give two shits if a Muslim and a Sikh get married in Vermont, why should it matter if Fred and Kyle get married?

[And?]

Well, we veered away from the boobject there.

However, I will be the first to say that it shouldn't be a huge deal if homosexuals should be denied marriage; if it is under the guise that religious institutions won't allow it because it's in violation of their beliefs. That's the way that I see marriage, irregardless of any definitions or statuses that define it.

Don't you be throwing non-standard adverbs down on the court, irrespective of your seniority, bitch. Under any guise? you want to suggest, a lack of equality is fundamentally inexcusable. Given the fact that the institution of marriage is not inherently religious, it would seem that yours is just that one opinion, which is fine .

While we're at it, I want a drinking fountain for negroes again. They're still getting water, right?

I couldn't believe it, either.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly aware that civil servants are permitted to marry people, as my dad is one of them. However, him, myself and all others in our family (yes, we're catholic) view marriage as something that should be done by a priest. I'm not here to preach that concept, but it's merely our view. Ergo, our view is that civil partnerships are essentially the same thing as marriages performed by judges, considering that they're still a partnership in the eyes of the law, however not in a religious sense.

Hun, that's affirming the consequent as well you know. A equals B, but B doesn't equal A. Civil partnerships are the same things as marriages even though one is recognised by law and the other (basically) isn't? The reason people want church marriages is to be recognised as equal, not 'cause they bum Jesus.

That's my job.

[Zwitterion]

I don't understand the reasoning here. I really don't. "Civil partnerships are only for gays so straights can't have them"? What sort of policy is that?

That's ... incredibly backwards. Hopefully this will highlight the fact that no, civil partnership isn't the same as marriage. Something obviously needs to be done, and I think that something is to just change the name of civil partnerships to "marriages" and specify that if churches want to be cunts about it they don't have to change their policy.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by steeper

So the impotent should have to have civil partnerships, since they can't be married under Catholic cannon law?

No where did I specify Catholicism. I said that I was catholic, not that it should dictate what should and shouldn't be legally allowed. You're missing my point. I'm stating my reasoning, that marriage is a religious institution, and if they (religious faiths) choose not to marry a couple because they are in violation of their beliefs, then that I personally feel that they are well within their rights to do so.

Marriage licences don't mention anything about God.

Either I didn't word my post correctly or you misinterpreted it. What I meant to say was that a priest joins you in the eyes of god, and when you sign the marriage license it joins you in the eyes of the law. You can have both, in my opinion a civil partnership is nothing more than being "married" as an atheist.

Marriage within the catholic church is a matter for the catholic church to deal with. Marriage in general is a matter for politicians to deal with, because it's a pact between you, your partner, and the government.

Again, you're taking that very, very slight "I'm Catholic" statement and converting it into the foundation of my entire post. That's false. I was merely stating that I was catholic to justify exactly where my broad opinion on the subject comes from.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by steeper

Marriage licences don't mention anything about God.

That one does.

(Though I'm being more than a bit pedantic.)

Originally Posted by Superjesus

Hopefully this will highlight the fact that no, civil partnership isn't the same as marriage.

It really pretty much is, though.

[Kevin]

Like I said, I'm not extremely well versed on this particular matter. Can somebody please point out to me what the differences are between civil partnership and marriages? I've heard bits and pieces, but really I'd like the whole, unbiased truth.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Can somebody please point out to me what the differences are between civil partnership and marriages?

The name. Yes, really, that's it, at least insofar as the UK goes.

[And?]

Originally Posted by Stewie

The name. Yes, really, that's it, at least insofar as the UK goes.

That's effectively right: the difference is in name only; the legal 'benefits' are exactly the same. The 'fight', so to speak, was "for parity", and this was seen as the first step. The issue becomes because it seems a little weak to 'grant' (which is pathetic in and of itself) such a thing, but then still make the 'status' unequal.

[Kevin]

I don't see why skin can't be grown. If it's the same thing, only under a different name, so what? I guess I fail to see the problem.