Government to unveil consultation plans for equal marriage in England and Wales tomorrow

by Stephen Gray, Pink News
14 March 2012, 6:26pm

Consultation plans for the UK government's introduction of civil marriage equality for gay couples are expected to be unveiled tomorrow.

The consultation, which will examine how, rather than whether, to introduce equal marriage will be revealed by the equalities minister Lynne Featherstone with the backing of the prime minister and deputy prime minister.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/03/14/government-to-unveil-consultation-on-equal-marriage-in-england-and-wales-tomorrow/

That's definitely a step in the right direction.

Obviously there will be the usual suspects against it, but by the sounds of it, it's going ahead regardless. Good stuff.

One thing in there which did rather make me smile was this:

QuoteBritain's only Catholic cardinal, Keith Michael Patrick O'Brien called it a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

Which just goes to show the desperately contradictory nature of the nay-sayers, and really warrants no comment since it's apparent that the brain wasn't quite engaged in that little morsel. If it's a human right, then logically speaking, the gender makes no difference if two humans want to excersize that right. Yay for rhetoric.

Really not sure what any of this is about to be honest. BUT I am all for equality, and equal marriage etc, but civil partnerships are essentially for people who are 'same sex' and doesn't really offer anything new to some one like me who is basically a heterosexual female, in a long term relationship with a man. I really just need the green light to marry in my appropriate gender, which by we can do, by obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Which doesn't replace your original birth certificate, but allows you to be issued a full or partial one (the latter I think is giving during a validation process) while your request is being reviewed. Basically I don't see what is actually new here, announcing equality marriage, or if even helps my situation.

what I'd like to know about this gay mariage nonsense is some statistics on how long they last compared to normal marriage as I'm inclined to think that the promiscuity of homosexuals and lesbians means they don't stay together very long so restricting them to a civil ceremony where they can split without trouble or expense is the best option.

Normal marriage endings causes all sorts of legal problems if there are kids and stepkids and property.

To fully integrate gay marriage into the social security and other systems will need a lot of changes and throw up all sorts of anomalies which we already have plenty of.

Quote from: Beverley on March 14, 2012, 05:27:03 PM
Perhaps my situation would be a good example. To get a GRC I have to divorce my wife because I cannot be married to her if we are both female. As we plan to stay together we then have to 'remarry' via a civil partnership.

So for nothing other than wanting things to stay the same we have to fund a divorce, wait for it to become absolute and then remarry. If one of us dies during that period then the other has no rights.

Allowing me and her to stay married affects no one who is already married, but it makes a huge difference to us.

Beverley

Wow, yeah I believe so, I generally think the whole system as it is is over complex as it is really. I have never bothered with the GRC, I hadn't really needed to provide 'proof' of who I am to anyone lately, but since my consultant retired, I have been feeling more worried about this situation in the future, and really need to sort this out. I just wish rather than the Government go on about 'Gay rights' or what ever, (Don't worry I am not anti Gay marriage) or anything, but they need to make the systems of gender recognition more easier to contend with and people to change as they need to. Its totally understandable why they need to have proof of all your history as your chosen gender, in case of fraud and so on.

As for Homosexual promiscuousness I would have to say, that they are probably likely to stay together in a relationship for years just like any hetrosexual couple to be honest, and are probably no less promiscuous, than Heterosexual's. Does anyone know any one who's gay and have a life time partner ? - any one famous ? I don't know, but yeah normal marriage causes a right mess. 

I have had for some time had minor problems with the Government, as they keep asking me why am I not in a civil partnership - its like explaining SRS and my Gender role 101 to them, its intrusive and embarrassing, and explaining WHY that route is not appropriate for me. So yeah must get my GRC sort out fast ! 

oh dear... marriage is all about stopping being individuals? 

if anyone wants a ceremony with one or both in a pretty dress they can have that all over town except in church which I happen to agree with seeing as I am sure we are all descended from Adam and Eve and if they don't believe that then they don't believe anything about religion apart from pix of happy couples photographed on old church steps look cute and they can get nice pix in the local park.

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 15, 2012, 05:53:34 AM
To fully integrate gay marriage into the social security and other systems will need a lot of changes and throw up all sorts of anomalies which we already have plenty of.

I expect women's suffrage cost the country some time and money to implement too. The fact that it takes time and money to right an inequity doesn't make it less valid to do so.

Incidentally, I've posted this in its own topic, but for citizens of England and Wales, there's an online survey that wants filling in by as many interested parties as possible, so I'll include it here too:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 15, 2012, 05:53:34 AM
what I'd like to know about this gay mariage nonsense is some statistics on how long they last compared to normal marriage as I'm inclined to think that the promiscuity of homosexuals and lesbians means they don't stay together very long so restricting them to a civil ceremony where they can split without trouble or expense is the best option.

Quit the stereotyping please, there are plenty of gay couples out there wanting to settle down as much as any straight couple And straight people are just as likely to be promiscuous - which would be a good reason for letting them enter into civil partnerships as well.

And thank you Beverley, for nailing the reason this is important to us as well. I got the email about the survey, but I'm at work right now so will take care of it later

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 15, 2012, 06:21:55 AM
oh dear... marriage is all about stopping being individuals? 

if anyone wants a ceremony with one or both in a pretty dress they can have that all over town except in church which I happen to agree with seeing as I am sure we are all descended from Adam and Eve and if they don't believe that then they don't believe anything about religion apart from pix of happy couples photographed on old church steps look cute and they can get nice pix in the local park.

No, not really ? people know entering into a marriage is a contract too, and affects their assets in life which is shared between each other. Its not just looking like a princess on your wedding day, which is a BIG part of looking your best for that special day, which in respect to gays and lesbians want to obviously look great too on theirs, but doesn't necessarily mean that they don't respect or understand the sanctity of Marriage.

I don't really think being Married should mean you have to give up being an individual, we are all different, your part of a partnership, but you still have your OWN mind, and freedom's to be what you want to be, not tied to the kitchen sink.

Quote from: Beverley on March 15, 2012, 06:34:41 AM
Thanks Padma. For those are have not bothered to read what this is about, the objectives stated by the government are

• to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
• to make no changes to religious marriages. This will continue to only be legally possible between a man and a woman
• to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert this into a marriage
• civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a voluntary basis for faith groups and with no religious content
• individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage

UPDATE - I have completed the consultation and I must say that the questions and such were very, very clear. If everyone who is opposing this issue would read the consultation then they would find most of their fears and objections are utterly groundless.

I do not normally praise government or politicians, but this time, for once, they seem to be doing the right thing for the right reasons.

Beverley

Yes, exactly why none of this applies to me or my situation, but it looks great for gay couples. I am happy for you all 

Reminder of Rule 10. 

10. Bashing or flaming of any individuals or groups is not acceptable behavior on this web site and will not be tolerated in the slightest for any reason.  This includes but is not limited to:

    Advocating the separation or exclusion of one or more group from under the Transgender umbrella term
    Suggesting or claiming that one segment or sub-segment of our community is more legitimate, deserving, or more real than any others

Well, I had some free time at work, so I did it:

QuoteI may not be married, but I would still prefer the option to marry someone who's going through a sex change without worrying about holding off until they get a GRC. Also, I feel very disappointed that churches such as mine - who want to be able to conduct religious marriage for same-sex couples - still won't be able to do so. At least let them have the option to?

As it stands, while this consultation is a positive move forward, it is still discriminatory. Why can't opposite-sex couples have civil partnerships if they want to? Why can't religious same-sex couples marry in their place of worship? Why should transsexual couples have to change from a civil partnership to marriage - doesn't that defeat the purpose of making this already difficult process easier to work with?

Thanks for not listening to the scare-mongers out there who seem convinced that this will "destroy the sanctity of marriage, damage society etc." My only other problem with this consultation is that it wasn't put into place sooner.

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 15, 2012, 05:53:34 AM
what I'd like to know about this gay mariage nonsense is some statistics on how long they last compared to normal marriage as I'm inclined to think that the promiscuity of homosexuals and lesbians means they don't stay together very long so restricting them to a civil ceremony where they can split without trouble or expense is the best option.

Normal marriage endings causes all sorts of legal problems if there are kids and stepkids and property.

To fully integrate gay marriage into the social security and other systems will need a lot of changes and throw up all sorts of anomalies which we already have plenty of.

No offense, Lilac....but based on this comment and your past comments, there is no way I believe you are an LGBT delegate.

Sometimes, I think you just post to cause visceral interjections than to contribute to a thread.

Quote from: Nemo on March 15, 2012, 09:02:15 AM
Well, I had some free time at work, so I did it:

I actually like this part of it too :-

"As it stands, while this consultation is a positive move forward, it is still discriminatory. Why can't opposite-sex couples have civil partnerships if they want to? Why can't religious same-sex couples marry in their place of worship? Why should transsexual couples have to change from a civil partnership to marriage - doesn't that defeat the purpose of making this already difficult process easier to work with?"

Yes, often wondered this too.