• UK government begins consultation on gay marriage
    35 replies, posted
[B]The government has launched a 12-week consultation on allowing gay couples in England and Wales to marry.[/B] [B]The proposal is being fiercely opposed by some senior church figures, as well as a number of Conservative MPs.[/B] Civil partnerships, introduced in 2005, [B]already gives gay couples similar legal rights to married couples[/B]. [B]But the government wants them to be legally allowed to make vows and declare they are married[/B] before the next general election, due in 2015. The Home Office's consultation paper proposes: [B]- [/B]to allow same-sex couples to marry in a register office or other civil ceremony [B]-[/B] to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert it into a marriage [B]-[/B] to allow people to stay married and legally change their gender - to maintain the legal ban on same-sex couples marrying in a religious service Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone said: "[B]We're not looking at changing religious marriage, even for those that might wish to do it.[/B] "I understand the liberal Jews, the Quakers and some unitarian churches would like it, but that's not in the sight of this consultation." [B] Labour welcomed the proposals but said they did not go far enough.[/B] Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: "Religious marriages are a matter for each church and denomination, not for the government. But equally, the government should go further than they currently plan [B]"Churches who want to celebrate gay marriage [should have] the chance to do so."[/B] Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell also welcomed the government's commitment to legalise same-sex civil marriages but said [B]he was unhappy about the continued ban on religious same-sex marriages[/B]. "This is not only homophobic but also an attack on religious freedom. [B]While no religious body should be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, those that want to conduct them should be free to do so.[/B]" Mike Judge, from the campaign group Coalition for Marriage, said: "Marriage is so much part of everyday life.[B] If we change its meaning in law, it will have a knock-on effect in everyday life.[/B]" [B]He pointed to Spain which has changed birth certificates to say 'progenitor A' and 'progenitor B' instead of mother and father since same-sex marriage was legalised there.[/B] The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for reform of the marriage laws, arguing that they are outdated and discriminate against same-sex couples. [B]While in opposition, Prime Minister David Cameron backed a move to consider allowing civil partnerships to be classified as marriage[/B], as part of his modernising drive in the Conservative Party's Contract For Equalities, published in May 2010. However, some [B]Conservative MPs are uncomfortable with the move, arguing it will undermine the traditional idea of the family[/B]. When legislation comes before the Commons, [B]Tory MPs are expected to be offered a free vote to avoid an embarrassing backbench revolt[/B]. Earlier this month, during Commons questions about the consultation, Conservative backbencher Peter Bone said: "[B]Wouldn't it just be very simple to write back and say: 'Marriage is between a man and a woman so this is completely nuts'?[/B]" Meanwhile, senior members of the clergy have complained that [B]politicians should not be allowed to redefine marriage[/B]. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland,[B] said the "grotesque" plans would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world"[/B] if implemented. A week later, Roman Catholic congregations across England and Wales were read a letter from the Church's two most senior archbishops saying the change would reduce the significance of marriage and it was the duty of all Roman Catholics to make sure it did not happen. Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay rights charity Stonewall, has said the issue was neither about religious freedom nor party politics. "Ultimately it's about the freedom of a small group of people to be treated in exactly the same way as everyone else," he said. A number of other countries already allow same-sex couples to marry, including Spain, Canada, Argentina, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden and Belgium. [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17375736[/URL] Trust the Tories to be against it
[QUOTE=matt.ant;35149466] Trust the Tories to be against it[/QUOTE] That's not really a fair thing to say, their religious beliefs may come before their politics in the case of the opposing MP's
[quote]But the government wants them to be legally allowed to make vows and declare they are married before the next general election, due in 2015.[/quote] Sweet. Wait wh- [quote] the next general election, due in 2015.[/quote] We're stuck with David Cameron for [U][I]Three. Fucking. Years?![/I][/U]
"Hey, hey, I know, lets allow religious extremists to decide over things which are mostly State-regulated now." Bloody hell.
Screw what the church says, they should have no influence in this.
Apocalypse in 3.. 2.. 1.. ... oh.
[quote]However, some Conservative MPs are uncomfortable with the move, arguing it will undermine the traditional idea of the family. [/quote] So is sticking your dick into someone who's not your wife but you don't seem to care about that, do you, hypocritical cunts.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;35149519]So is sticking your dick into someone who's not your wife but you don't seem to care about that, do you, hypocritical cunts.[/QUOTE] Not to mention that married couples get more benefits, like with taxes etc. Fucking bullshit to keep homosexual couples out of that because of "traditional idea of family".
Isn't the whole "Homosexuality is wrong" thing just a huge misinterpetation of an entry in the Bible saying that men should not be treated like women?
-snip don't even want to get involved-
[QUOTE=matt.ant;35149466][B] Labour welcomed the proposals but said they did not go far enough.[/B][/QUOTE] LABOUR WERE IN POWER FOR 13 YEARS AND DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. Labour, you're just making yourselves look pathetic now.
At least they're trying. And at least the bigots in the UK keep mostly quiet until you start poking them.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;35149697]LABOUR WERE IN POWER FOR 13 YEARS AND DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. Labour, you're just making yourselves look pathetic now.[/QUOTE] Tony Blair was highly catholic, he wouldn't do anything
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;35149491]Sweet. Wait wh- We're stuck with David Cameron for [U][I]Three. Fucking. Years?![/I][/U][/QUOTE] Better start a modern day gunpowder plot.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;35149491]We're stuck with David Cameron for [U][I]Three. Fucking. Years?![/I][/U][/QUOTE] Not if he keeps going where he is with the NHS. The public can force it early if they deem the coalition a failure (which is fucking is).
[QUOTE=eddy-tt-;35149728]Not if he keeps going where he is with the NHS. The public can force it early if they deem the coalition a failure (which is fucking is).[/QUOTE] but i want to pay for worse healthcare private 4 life!!!!!!
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;35149697]LABOUR WERE IN POWER FOR 13 YEARS AND DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. Labour, you're just making yourselves look pathetic now.[/QUOTE] The times, they are achangin' (mostly because Britain can't do anything anymore without America doing it first) Anyway, this is good news. If it doesn't go through I will be very disappointed.
Whilst it'd be a plus for gay marriage to be legalised, more power to them, I can't really see any real point in marriage in general; it reeks of religion sticking it's nose in matters of love. You don't need to be unified in the eyes of an abstract ethereal absentee father-figure to profess your love for one-another, you don't need to prove anything to anyone; all that is needed is for the two to KNOW that they are meant to be together.
Look at this fucking shit [url]http://c4m.org.uk/[/url]
There's a petition going around in my area to stop this happening, plan on burning it when it gets to me [editline]15th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ironman17;35149751]Whilst it'd be a plus for gay marriage to be legalised, more power to them, I can't really see any real point in marriage in general; it reeks of religion sticking it's nose in matters of love. You don't need to be unified in the eyes of an abstract ethereal absentee father-figure to profess your love for one-another, you don't need to prove anything to anyone; all that is needed is for the two to KNOW that they are meant to be together.[/QUOTE] There are certain benefits that a civil partnership don't provide.
[QUOTE=smurfy;35149759]Look at this fucking shit [url]http://c4m.org.uk/[/url][/QUOTE] 211,997 people have signed the petition admitting that they are fucking retarded so far
[QUOTE=smurfy;35149759]Look at this fucking shit [url]http://c4m.org.uk/[/url][/QUOTE] Ugh. (Attempted) oppression of the minority by the majority is sickening, and their points are such bullshit.
[QUOTE=smurfy;35149759]Look at this fucking shit [url]http://c4m.org.uk/[/url][/QUOTE] I feel like punching somebody.
[QUOTE=smurfy;35149759]Look at this fucking shit [url]http://c4m.org.uk/[/url][/QUOTE]why are these people playing politics with marriage like this :(
There is literally no argument for retaining civil partnerships instead of gay marriage. All that changes is the words, and the only reason they can possibly give for keeping the words different is that they think gay relationships are inferior to straight ones But they can't say that so they have to come up with meaningless reasons like "THEY'RE PLAYING POLITICS WITH MARRIAGE!!"
[quote]Meanwhile, senior members of the clergy have complained that politicians should not be allowed to redefine marriage.[/quote] They're not, they're changing what a few documents say it is so it matches up with what the public regard it as.
In the UK, Civil Partnerships are already very similar to Marriages. The only difference is the lack of religious ceremony. As far as I know, most "marriages" done in the UK these days are civil partnerships these days anyway. We shouldn't be forcing religious institutions to marry people they don't want to. Yes, make same-sex marriages legal if the majority of religious institutions approve it, but don't make it illegal not to marry a same-sex couple. Leave peoples stupid cults alone, basically.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;35150456]In the UK, Civil Partnerships are already very similar to Marriages. The only difference is the lack of religious ceremony. As far as I know, most "marriages" done in the UK these days are civil partnerships these days anyway. We shouldn't be forcing religious institutions to marry people they don't want to. Yes, make same-sex marriages legal if the majority of religious institutions approve it, but don't make it illegal not to marry a same-sex couple. Leave peoples stupid cults alone, basically.[/QUOTE] The problem is same sex couples can't have a [i]legal[/i] marriage, and hetero couples can't get a civil partnership, it's "separate but equal" bullshit. The only place where religions come into it is because that's where a marriage ceremony is traditionally performed, and because someone's interpretation of their scripture of choice says that some people don't get the same rights as others.
why is gay marriage such a fucking problem anyway it should be legal everywhere
Come on legal gay marriage for everyone. Why do married people get treaties anyway?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.