What's in a Name?

Grubber

Lantern Swinger
#2
Totally agree.

"We can't buy into the culture and language of marriage"

He forgot to add "Man" at the end of that sentence.

Lefty, Hippy crap that will cost time and money sorting out. :?
 
#3
It would also extend the rights of straight couples to Civil Partnerships, and there's a lot that want it.
As it stands a Civil Partnership is not equal to a Marriage and a Marriage is not equal to the Partnership.
 

Grubber

Lantern Swinger
#5
sussex2 said:
It would also extend the rights of straight couples to Civil Partnerships, and there's a lot that want it.
As it stands a Civil Partnership is not equal to a Marriage and a Marriage is not equal to the Partnership.
Can you give us a synopsis of the difference in rights? I've been looking on various different websites and can't find any differences. In fact, they all say that rights for couples in Marriages and Civil Partnerships are comparable.

Furthermore, there are a good many Gay and Lesbian contributors out there who want the motion to fail, as the Civil Partnership will lose it's current identity and simply become "Marriage-lite"
 
#6
trelawney126 said:
So what is the difference?
Because there are two different names for the contracts depending on sexuality - which is a start.
Therefore you are discriminated against if you are a partnership of the same sex, and if you are a partnership of the opposite sex.
This, according to some, flies in the face of all equality legislation.
In my own purely personal opinion I think everything should be turned into a Civil Partnership, irrespective of sex, and a civil matter.
Then if some wish to go before a cleric and have the matter blessed it would be up to them.
 
#7
sussex2 said:
trelawney126 said:
So what is the difference?
Because there are two different names for the contracts depending on sexuality - which is a start.
Therefore you are discriminated against if you are a partnership of the same sex, and if you are a partnership of the opposite sex.
This, according to some, flies in the face of all equality legislation.
But what are the legal differences or entitlements between a civil partnership and a marriage?
 
#8
Grubber said:
sussex2 said:
It would also extend the rights of straight couples to Civil Partnerships, and there's a lot that want it.
As it stands a Civil Partnership is not equal to a Marriage and a Marriage is not equal to the Partnership.
Can you give us a synopsis of the difference in rights? I've been looking on various different websites and can't find any differences. In fact, they all say that rights for couples in Marriages and Civil Partnerships are comparable.

Furthermore, there are a good many Gay and Lesbian contributors out there who want the motion to fail, as the Civil Partnership will lose it's current identity and simply become "Marriage-lite"
I know of no obvious difference, except perhaps in pension entitlement in some circumstance. And and important difference UK civil partnerships are not recognised abroad on an equal basis to marriage.
In Spain it is marriage full stop irrespective of the sex of the couple, and a mayor officiates, not a priest.
But some feel there is a distinct difference because couples of the same sex cannot have a Marriage, nor any kind of religious service. Plus couples of opposite sexes may not have a Civil Partnership.
Nowhere does the legislation mention same sexuality, only same sex.
 
#9
WreckerL said:
sussex2 said:
trelawney126 said:
So what is the difference?
Because there are two different names for the contracts depending on sexuality - which is a start.
Therefore you are discriminated against if you are a partnership of the same sex, and if you are a partnership of the opposite sex.
This, according to some, flies in the face of all equality legislation.
But what are the legal differences or entitlements between a civil partnership and a marriage?
Apart from those two who fuggin cares!!!!
 
#10
WreckerL said:
sussex2 said:
trelawney126 said:
So what is the difference?
Because there are two different names for the contracts depending on sexuality - which is a start.
Therefore you are discriminated against if you are a partnership of the same sex, and if you are a partnership of the opposite sex.
This, according to some, flies in the face of all equality legislation.
But what are the legal differences or entitlements between a civil partnership and a marriage?
In the name, pure and simple. Why the difference between them? That is what people are asking.
A Civil Partnership cannot be divorced, but can be annulled. There is no provision for infidelity as a ground for separation in Civil Partnerships. It seems only same sex couples may be guilty of that :lol:
So yes there are some pretty basic differences.
 
#11
sussex2 said:
trelawney126 said:
So what is the difference?
Because there are two different names for the contracts depending on sexuality - which is a start.
Therefore you are discriminated against if you are a partnership of the same sex, and if you are a partnership of the opposite sex.
This, according to some, flies in the face of all equality legislation.
In my own purely personal opinion I think everything should be turned into a Civil Partnership, irrespective of sex, and a civil matter.
Then if some wish to go before a cleric and have the matter blessed it would be up to them.
You don't have to go before a cleric to get married...

I do agree thought that most people equate marriage with religion. I would argue the other way, scrub round civil partnerships and call it all marriage (if the legal side is identical); it would help develop some degree of balance in perception of what marriage is.
 
#12
Waspie said:
WreckerL said:
sussex2 said:
trelawney126 said:
So what is the difference?
Because there are two different names for the contracts depending on sexuality - which is a start.
Therefore you are discriminated against if you are a partnership of the same sex, and if you are a partnership of the opposite sex.
This, according to some, flies in the face of all equality legislation.
But what are the legal differences or entitlements between a civil partnership and a marriage?
Apart from those two who fuggin cares!!!!
I assume (only that) that you are talking from the point of view of the privileged majority :pukeleft:
 
#13
labrum said:
sussex2 said:
trelawney126 said:
So what is the difference?
Because there are two different names for the contracts depending on sexuality - which is a start.
Therefore you are discriminated against if you are a partnership of the same sex, and if you are a partnership of the opposite sex.
This, according to some, flies in the face of all equality legislation.
In my own purely personal opinion I think everything should be turned into a Civil Partnership, irrespective of sex, and a civil matter.
Then if some wish to go before a cleric and have the matter blessed it would be up to them.
You don't have to go before a cleric to get married...

I do agree thought that most people equate marriage with religion. I would argue the other way, scrub round civil partnerships and call it all marriage (if the legal side is identical); it would help develop some degree of balance in perception of what marriage is.
That's what they've done in Spain. I think we lagged behind because we had a closet Catholic PM with an orthodox Catholic wife - IMHO of course but I can't think these factors did not have some influence.
 
#14
sussex2 said:
Waspie said:
WreckerL said:
sussex2 said:
trelawney126 said:
So what is the difference?
Because there are two different names for the contracts depending on sexuality - which is a start.
Therefore you are discriminated against if you are a partnership of the same sex, and if you are a partnership of the opposite sex.
This, according to some, flies in the face of all equality legislation.
But what are the legal differences or entitlements between a civil partnership and a marriage?
Apart from those two who fuggin cares!!!!
I assume (only that) that you are talking from the point of view of the privileged majority :pukeleft:
No! I simply don't care.
 
#15
labrum said:
sussex2 said:
trelawney126 said:
So what is the difference?
Because there are two different names for the contracts depending on sexuality - which is a start.
Therefore you are discriminated against if you are a partnership of the same sex, and if you are a partnership of the opposite sex.
This, according to some, flies in the face of all equality legislation.
In my own purely personal opinion I think everything should be turned into a Civil Partnership, irrespective of sex, and a civil matter.
Then if some wish to go before a cleric and have the matter blessed it would be up to them.
You don't have to go before a cleric to get married...

I do agree thought that most people equate marriage with religion. I would argue the other way, scrub round civil partnerships and call it all marriage (if the legal side is identical); it would help develop some degree of balance in perception of what marriage is.

Marriage as a binding areement between two people, freely entered into. I'd buy that :wink:
 
#16
Waspie said:
sussex2 said:
Waspie said:
WreckerL said:
sussex2 said:
trelawney126 said:
So what is the difference?
Because there are two different names for the contracts depending on sexuality - which is a start.
Therefore you are discriminated against if you are a partnership of the same sex, and if you are a partnership of the opposite sex.
This, according to some, flies in the face of all equality legislation.
But what are the legal differences or entitlements between a civil partnership and a marriage?
Apart from those two who fuggin cares!!!!
I assume (only that) that you are talking from the point of view of the privileged majority :pukeleft:
No! I simply don't care.
Your opinion is valued!
 
#17
sussex2 said:
labrum said:
sussex2 said:
trelawney126 said:
So what is the difference?
Because there are two different names for the contracts depending on sexuality - which is a start.
Therefore you are discriminated against if you are a partnership of the same sex, and if you are a partnership of the opposite sex.
This, according to some, flies in the face of all equality legislation.
In my own purely personal opinion I think everything should be turned into a Civil Partnership, irrespective of sex, and a civil matter.
Then if some wish to go before a cleric and have the matter blessed it would be up to them.
You don't have to go before a cleric to get married...

I do agree thought that most people equate marriage with religion. I would argue the other way, scrub round civil partnerships and call it all marriage (if the legal side is identical); it would help develop some degree of balance in perception of what marriage is.
That's what they've done in Spain. I think we lagged behind because we had a closet Catholic PM with an orthodox Catholic wife - IMHO of course but I can't think these factors did not have some influence.
I think you bang on there - Given Spain's position as a previously Catholic state the lack movement in this area is, in my view, an embarrassment and I say that as a practising Catholic. For what it's worth I think you're right about Bliar too; there was most definitely a religious angle to his decision making.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
The_Caretaker Land Ops 0
S Submariners 37
S Royal Naval Reserve (RNR) 4

Similar threads

Latest Threads