observer Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Does anyone know the difference in law, between a "civil partnership" and "marriage"? If legal spousal right are protected in both cases, surely Parliament are just wasting their time over semantics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 It amazes me that Dave is so scared off offending the gay voter who now has more equality & rights than at any time in history. Are these people so influential in his corridors of power that his & his party's future is dependant on placating these people. Surely,a bigger threat to the Tories are the Europhobes & the increasing army of pensioners who can cast the grey vote & not the gay vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Well at least they've been honest and upfront about it and not tried to slip it in the back door. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 For what it's worth my vote would be 'no' to gay marriages, I have no objections to homosexual people living together, why should I, they have every right to do what they wish to do as long as it does not contravene any of the laws of the country but as for getting married in a religeous ceremony, again only my opinion, it should not happen!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Well at least they've been honest and upfront about it and not tried to slip it in the back door. bloody hell wolfie, at first I thought you were being serious. I should have known better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Sorry folks but no answers to the question - "what's the difference between a civil partnership and marriage"? I presume a civil partnership contains, in law, all the spousal protections that marriage does? I presume it has to registered at a register office in the same way as a marriage? So all that's missing is a "religious ceremony" for those that want it? There will be no compulsion for Churches to provide such ceremonies under the new law; so unless they find a sufficiently "progressive" religious sect to provide such a ceremony, they're back where they started - so what's the point? I think the point is, that they want to make a point - and ultimately this is all a load of trivial fuss over nothing; alas all that's left to our MPs, given real power resides in Brussels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Can any of you explain how it would affect you personally if same sex marriages were permitted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Yes. Not at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Same as Fugs, not at all!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 I wouldn't mind as long as they include a clause to outlaw these bloody gay pride events.... those I can do without! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Tend to agree with alg " Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose further redefinition — to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team? Are all private contractual relations for cohabitation to be rendered equal, or are some to be privileged over others, as has been customary in all times and places? If the latter, what is wrong with heterosexual pairing as the privileged status, sanctified as it is by custom and popular feeling?" As for no compulsion for Churches to provide such ceremonies, tell that to the European Court of human rights. It will only be a matter of time. The key point is that the word “marriage” has been used to define the union of a woman and man with at least a key end of having and raising children 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 If a gay couple were refused a marriage in a Church of England ceremony & decided to go to the ECHR could it cause a constitutional crisis in Britain considering the monarch is the head of the Church of England ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 The idea of folk having a legally recognised "civil partnership" to ensure spousal status and protection in law - I have no probs with. Not being religious, neither am I bothered too much about the "marriage" dimension, other than the fact that it offers nothing of legal substance in addition to a CP; so is in effect a total waste of politician's time and energy, given the fundamental issues that need to be addressed. And for engaging in such superficial and needless trivia, I believe our MPs are now chasing a 25% pay increase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 Only 25% how will they cope? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 Seems they want parity with GPs - more money for less hours. Perhaps MEPs will provide out of hours cover?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 To be fair, it may mean curbs on their gold plated pensions and expenses. ha ha "Although the pay rise is expected to be recommended soon, it will not come into effect until after the 2015 general election. In other words, every MP will have to be elected or re-elected to get the cash. So if you only vote for those candidates who reject the pay rise and who pledge to keep their salary in line with inflation, then there will be no bumper pay deal for MPs." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 So if you only vote for those candidates who reject the pay rise and who pledge to keep their salary in line with inflation, then there will be no bumper pay deal for MPs. So I will have to keep the pigs grounded then tonight. they really wanted to stretch their wings as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 I'm afraid that this is just more evidence that our overpaid politicians have nothing serious to debate since all major decisions are made by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Cue Lt Kije 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 They have lots to talk about, the economy, government borrowing which is going up ect, They choose to debate and vote on it, nobody except the gay community was pushing them to. Perhaps their are alot of gay Tory and Lib Dems that are going to come out of the closet and get married. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 But let's be honest, in the wider community, how many people could give a tuppenny damn what other people get up to so long as they don't scare the horses. Why this has to be debated by Parliament at all is nothing short of sad, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Wot Asp said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Just watched Q-Time, and none of the panel could state the difference in law or rights, between "marriage" and a "civil partnership" - so point made, about a point being made by gays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 So all a waste of time and money. As I said before, apart from a tiny minority who gives a flying fig? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 or a flying fag? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 or a monkey's bum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.