Civil Partnership Act for gays passed in Britain; British cry out "there was one?!"

[Charles RB]

I wake up in the morning, and apparently the government's gone and passed a Civil Partnership Act (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm) (which is basically gay marriage in all but name) without me even knowing there was one.

The first ceremonies under the Civil Partnerships Act can take place in Northern Ireland on 19 December, followed by Scotland the next day and England and Wales on 21 December.

Under the law, couples who want to form a partnership must register their intentions with local councils. Unlike marriages, the signing of the legal partnership papers does not need to happen in public.

Hundreds of couples are expected to go ahead quickly, with Brighton conducting 198 ceremonies before the end of the year. Overall, the city has taken 510 bookings for the coming months, thought to be the highest in the country.

Other cities which have seen strong interest include London, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and Edinburgh.

Of course, the real best bit about this whole thing is not the happy people able to marry their partners, it's discovering how fast capitalism works:

A range of "Mr and Mr" and "Mrs and Mrs" cards will hit Asda supermarkets this week.

And sets of "Darling, Dearest, Queerest" embroidered towel and soaps went on sale at Superdrug stores on Friday.

There are apparently some religious groups that aren't happy with this, but the main British reaction seems to be "who cares? Eastenders is on in a minute".

[cactusmaac]

A rare example of an eminently sensible political compromise being worked out in a mature fashion.

[cactusmaac]

There are apparently some religious groups that aren't happy with this, but the main British reaction seems to be "who cares? Eastenders is on in a minute".

I think Corrie's a lot more popular nowadays.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Last week, South Africa. Now this.

The US continues to follow, rather than lead, on this issue. At this rate, one has to wonder if some mid-eastern nations might pass the US.

"And in the race to abandon backwards, bigoted policies... neck and neck for last, the US and Iran..."

[BlairH]

For all of us legal types.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040033.htm

[cactusmaac]

Last week, South Africa. Now this.

The US continues to follow, rather than lead, on this issue. At this rate, one has to wonder if some mid-eastern nations might pass the US.

"And in the race to abandon backwards, bigoted policies... neck and neck for last, the US and Iran..."

Well these are civil unions being approved, not marriages.

Bush himself is OK with those.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights," said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (search). "States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

[Charles RB]

I think Corrie's a lot more popular nowadays.

There's a difference between the two?

[Hoss]

Well these are civil unions being approved, not marriages.

Bush himself is OK with those.




Actually, Bush's position is against exactly what the UK now has which is nationally recognized legal partnership for gays. A very important distinction not only in symbolism but in practical application. It's like saying that someone who supported Jim Crow was actually in favor of federal civil rights.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well these are civil unions being approved, not marriages.

Bush himself is OK with those.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/
Maybe Bush is, but many in his party are not, nor are many of his supporters. Most of the "no gay marriage" amendments which have been passed on the state level also prohibit the establishment of gay civil unions.

Bush has also spoken favorably of his brother Jeb's successful effort to prohibit gays from adopting kids in Florida.

[warspite1805]

There's a difference between the two?
Yes one is on the Beeb the other is on ITV, can't think of any other differences of note though

[BlairH]

Actually, Bush's position is against exactly what the UK now has which is nationally recognized legal partnership for gays. A very important distinction not only in symbolism but in practical application. It's like saying that someone who supported Jim Crow was actually in favor of federal civil rights.
It's different though when we're dealing with the US and the UK though. England & Wales is a single legal juristiction. The US -in practice- is 50+

[Charles RB]

It's different though when we're dealing with the US and the UK though. England & Wales is a single legal juristiction. The US -in practice- is 50+

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own parliaments and some degree of autonomy though, so even if England passed this, they could have not passed it or at least kicked up a fuss if they wanted to. (And originall, civil partnerships were confined to London only) Now as far as I know, if the federal government in America decides something, the 50+ states have to lump it.

[cactusmaac]

Actually, Bush's position is against exactly what the UK now has which is nationally recognized legal partnership for gays. A very important distinction not only in symbolism but in practical application. It's like saying that someone who supported Jim Crow was actually in favor of federal civil rights.

We're a kingdom, so the national\federal distinction is lost on us.

[BlairH]

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own parliaments and some degree of autonomy though,
Only Scotland has it's own parliament. The rest have "assemblies" which are very different. England & Wales is a single legal juristiction.

The Parliament in Westminster is "supreme" in that it can pass what it wants, and the legislation doesn't have to be approved by the Welsh assembley for it to be put into effect.

[cactusmaac]

Yes one is on the Beeb the other is on ITV, can't think of any other differences of note though

One is full of whingeing Mancs, the other is full of whingeing Eastenders.

Brookside was full of whingeing Geordies.

[west3man]

We're a kingdom,
I don't know why, but that sounds so cool when you put it like that.

[Flight]

Brookside was full of whingeing Geordies. Liverpudlians.

[Slam_Bradley]

Now as far as I know, if the federal government in America decides something, the 50+ states have to lump it.


Overall, this is largely true. It's called preemption. However, the Federal government can only preempt state law in areas it has Constitutional control over. That has never included marriages.

[cactusmaac]

Ah, right. I was thinking of Byker Grove.

[Dreadstar]

Overall, this is largely true. It's called preemption. However, the Federal government can only preempt state law in areas it has Constitutional control over. That has never included marriages.

And then you have that whole bit about states honoring other states laws.

[Slam_Bradley]

And then you have that whole bit about states honoring other states laws.


Full-Faith and Credit with marriage laws is an interesting situation. There is a long line of cases that hold that one state does not have to extend full-faith and credit to another state's marriages if they are violative of the first state's public policy. They tended to arise out of states refusing to recognize marriages between cousins that were legal in one state, but not in another. I think some may have dealt with prohibitions against divorced people re-marrying. Be that as it may, marriage is one of the few areas that full-faith and credit is not absolute.

[BlairH]

I don't know why, but that sounds so cool when you put it like that.

We actually get to talk in "ye olde English" Kingdom dialect as well, just yesterday I said unto my boss at work.

"What manner of man are ye who can conjure up fire without flint or tinder?"

[JeffreyWKramer]

Overall, this is largely true. It's called preemption. However, the Federal government can only preempt state law in areas it has Constitutional control over. That has never included marriages.

Not marriage per se, but equal rights is very much a federal issue, and lots of state laws re: interracial marriage were overturned back w/ the US Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia. That decision found marriage to be a fundamental right.

[warspite1805]

We actually get to talk in "ye olde English" Kingdom dialect as well, just yesterday I said unto my boss at work.

"What manner of man are ye who can conjure up fire without flint or tinder?"
Is that before you ran him through with your Claymore, then looted and pillaged his store :)

[Slam_Bradley]

Not marriage per se, but equal rights is very much a federal issue, and lots of state laws re: interracial marriage were overturned back w/ the US Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia. That decision found marriage to be a fundamental right.


Absolutely. But only if it rises to the level of a Constitutional issue. Gays have never been found to be a protected class for Equal Protection issues. Without that the current line of cases on FF&C stand.

[BlairH]

Is that before you ran him through with your Claymore, then looted and pillaged his store :)
Indeed. Much to the lamentation of his wenches and his womenfolk!

[JeffreyWKramer]

Absolutely. But only if it rises to the level of a Constitutional issue. Gays have never been found to be a protected class for Equal Protection issues. Without that the current line of cases on FF&C stand.


Would the issue here then be one of equal protection, or denial of fundamental rights (which, as I understand it, does not apply only in regard to protected classes)? In other words, would it be an issue of the state treating a class differently, or possibly one of the state inappropriately refusing to grant fudamental rights to all who would otherwise be eligible based on age?

[Hiromi]

Full-Faith and Credit with marriage laws is an interesting situation. There is a long line of cases that hold that one state does not have to extend full-faith and credit to another state's marriages if they are violative of the first state's public policy. They tended to arise out of states refusing to recognize marriages between cousins that were legal in one state, but not in another. I think some may have dealt with prohibitions against divorced people re-marrying. Be that as it may, marriage is one of the few areas that full-faith and credit is not absolute.

Didn't the Clinton administration pass a law regarding that?

[Slam_Bradley]

Would the issue here then be one of equal protection, or denial of fundamental rights (which, as I understand it, does not apply only in regard to protected classes)? In other words, would it be an issue of the state treating a class differently, or possibly one of the state inappropriately refusing to grant fudamental rights to all who would otherwise be eligible based on age?


Either is predicated on it being viewed as a US Constitutional issue, which at this time it isn't and looking at the precident, it is unlikely to be at any time in the near term. While marriage has been found to be a fundamental right, the state can still limit that right if there is a compelling state interest. Thus we have age restrictions, consanguinity restrictions, et. al. Loving, if I remember correctly, was decided on equal protection grounds.

There is nothing keeping a state from allowing gay marriage. I'm not, however, convinced that other states would have to recognize it based on Full Faith and Credit.

I'm not sure if that answered your question. I'm not sure that the answer is very clear at this point.

[Gilda Dent]

Hooray for the UK!

First Canada, now the UK, can the US be far behind? Civil rights for everyone! Now there's a revolutionary concept.

Gilda

[cactusmaac]

To be honest, I think a number of states in the US would already have it if the gay marriage drive hadn't started.

[Charles RB]

First Canada, now the UK, can the US be far behind?

Personally, I'm interested in seeing whether or not Ireland legalises it now that Northern Ireland has.

[BlairH]

Hooray for the UK!

First Canada, now the UK, can the US be far behind? Civil rights for everyone! Now there's a revolutionary concept.

Gilda
It's far from equality under the law:
a) Straight couples can not enter into a civil partnership
b) Gay couples can not get married

If anything it just entrenches the doctrine of "seperate but equal".

[Charles RB]

It's far from equality under the law:
a) Straight couples can not enter into a civil partnership

Except why would a straight couple want a civil partnership? It's the exact same thing as marriage except that it's not called a marriage, which many would see as a bad thing.

If anything it just entrenches the doctrine of "seperate but equal".

Which is why, when civil partnerships are firmly established, there should be efforts to chance the name to marriages.

[Iangould]

One is full of whingeing Mancs, the other is full of whingeing Eastenders.

Brookside was full of whingeing Geordies.

Hence the popularity of Neighbours and "Home & Away". Australians have nothing to whinge about.

[Paul McEnery]

It's far from equality under the law:
a) Straight couples can not enter into a civil partnership
b) Gay couples can not get married

If anything it just entrenches the doctrine of "seperate but equal".
Ayup.

Though interestingly, same-sex friends who aren't gay can get civil partnerships; whereas different-sex friends will have to either get married or make their own arrangements.

Still, one step at a time, eh?

[cactusmaac]

Hence the popularity of Neighbours and "Home & Away". Australians have nothing to whinge about.

Neighbours is about the only soap I'll watch.

[Justin Davis]

Except why would a straight couple want a civil partnership? It's the exact same thing as marriage except that it's not called a marriage, which many would see as a bad thing.



Which is why, when civil partnerships are firmly established, there should be efforts to chance the name to marriages.

I've always thought it should be the other way around. Stop calling it a marriage license and start calling it a civil union license. People get united in the eyes of the government and married in the eyes of religion. ... In the eyes... Hmm, there's some sort of symbolism or analogy to be made here using eyes... maybe something about nearsightedness or glaucoma, but I'm not up to it at the moment.

Also, since the lawyers in the crowd started discussing full faith and credit when applied from state to state, what about its applications internationally? If a married couple came over here from Britain before, the marriage would be honored. What will or could happen now?

[Iangould]

And then you have that whole bit about states honoring other states laws.

I doubt it will get as heated but I can see a state-by-state adoption of gay marriage (or civil unions) being a replay of the fugitive slave laws in the ante-bellum US.

Some states have passed laws which prohibit state courts from "recognising" gay marriages in other states.

What happens in cases of divorce where there are property or custody settlements? How about when a partner in a civil union dies without leaving a will?

[Slam_Bradley]

Also, since the lawyers in the crowd started discussing full faith and credit when applied from state to state, what about its applications internationally? If a married couple came over here from Britain before, the marriage would be honored. What will or could happen now?


Interesting question. I'm honestly not sure. I'd assume and it is strictly an assumption, that unless it was covered under a treaty of some sort, it would be up to the individual states.

This is far afield of my area of supposed expertese.

[Charles RB]

Though interestingly, same-sex friends who aren't gay can get civil partnerships

Quoth the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,1657772,00.html):

longstanding heterosexual friends of the same sex could also register if, for instance, they wanted to pass on assets to each other free of inheritance tax.

Which doesn't sound quite how you seem to be presenting it.

[Iangould]

It's far from equality under the law:
a) Straight couples can not enter into a civil partnership
b) Gay couples can not get married

If anything it just entrenches the doctrine of "seperate but equal".

The howard government here, with howard's usual political adroitness, has recognised "intimate associations" (I think that's the euphemism) which covers gay couples, hetero couples in de facto relationships; people living together long-term in platonic relaitonships and adult children acting as carers for their parents.

It doesn't give the same tax advantages as marriage but has some advantages in areas such as inheritance and welfare benefits.

[west3man]

Quoth the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,1657772,00.html):



Which doesn't sound quite how you seem to be presenting it.
I didn't check the link, but judging by the portion you shared, they could just be explaining WHY those people might make that choice. It doesn't sound so far off from what Paul's suggesting.

[Paul McEnery]

I didn't check the link, but judging by the portion you shared, they could just be explaining WHY those people might make that choice. It doesn't sound so far off from what Paul's suggesting.
If you were business partners, for example; or a comedy double act; and you needed to get your partner citizenship.

[Xetal]

From some of the more vitriolic boards I've seen where there are rants against gay marriage, the main objection in the US seems to be to the label 'marriage.'

Most people are happy (or politically-correct) enough to see gays have equal treatment for such things as tax and the capacity to inherit the family home as a surviving spouse would in the straight world. But 'marriage' is too emotive/religious a description of the state of partnership enjoyed by straight people (who mostly make the laws) for them to want to share it with gays, at least for this generation.

Britain in general is a good deal more secular than America: objectors on religious grounds don't have the numbers, the voice or the political clout to make themselves a thorn in the flesh of the passing of such laws. Indeed I suspect as many MPs might be openly gay as openly religious.

In America I think gays would do well to grab any civil union laws going (there's bound to be more backlash) - but also to keep campaigning for full equality of marriage once their responsible approach to civil union has convinced enough of the public to back the enshrinement of gay marriage into law in the fullness of time.

[Corrina]

Interesting question. I'm honestly not sure. I'd assume and it is strictly an assumption, that unless it was covered under a treaty of some sort, it would be up to the individual states.

This is far afield of my area of supposed expertese.

The federal Defense of Marriage and Family Act (I think that's him name) was passed after Clinton left office. I think it prohibits any recognition of same-sex marriages, even if they are recognized by foreign government. For instance, say, an American & a British citizen were joined under this new law over there, I don't think America would recognize it--therefore the British citizen couldn't get a green card in the USA, because the union would not be recognized here.

Similarly, married same-sex couples in Massachusetts can't file their federal taxes jointly or so the theory goes. It hasn't been tested in court. It'd be interesting to see what the ruling would be from the Supreme Court if Massachusetts newlyweds filed suit.

Or so my husband the lawyer says. Real lawyers, feel free to correct that.

[BlairH]

Except why would a straight couple want a civil partnership? It's the exact same thing as marriage except that it's not called a marriage


That's the same argument as "why would a gay couple want a marriage? It's the exact same thing as a civil partnership, except that it's not called a civil partnership."

[Hiromi]

The federal Defense of Marriage and Family Act (I think that's him name) was passed after Clinton left office.

This was the one I was asking about earlier on, just couldn't remember the name, and no it was passed in 96, well before Clinton left office.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

First, it provides
that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the
words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.

[Gilda Dent]

It's far from equality under the law:
a) Straight couples can not enter into a civil partnership
b) Gay couples can not get married

If anything it just entrenches the doctrine of "seperate but equal".

Oh, I agree with you here, that it's not true equality.

However, it is a step in the right direction, a lot closer to true equality than the situation as it existed before.

That's the same argument as "why would a gay couple want a marriage? It's the exact same thing as a civil partnership, except that it's not called a civil partnership."

The difference here is that civil unions are a compromise position, as you say above, a lesser form of marriage. Opposite sex couples already have access to the real thing, getting access to a lesser form is hardly discrimination.

It's like arguing that seperate water fountains for "whites only" and for "coloreds" discriminates against whites.

Gilda

[Corrina]

This was the one I was asking about earlier on, just couldn't remember the name, and no it was passed in 96, well before Clinton left office.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

My mistake. Hey, something that legitimately can be blamed on Clinton!

[Charles RB]

That's the same argument as "why would a gay couple want a marriage? It's the exact same thing as a civil partnership, except that it's not called a civil partnership."

No it's not. Functionally, they're the exact same thing. The name 'marriage', however, holds a lot more personal & social meaning than 'civil partnership', and that's why most gay couples would rather be married than in a civil partnership (obviously they'll take the partnership now it's available though); and there are people who are refering to the partnerships as marriages. Because the term marriage means something.

But if you're a heterosexual couple, why would you want a civil partnership when you've got the prefered option? The partnerships are a compromise- the relationships get legally recognised and get all the legal benefits they couldn't get when denied marriage, but getting the lesser term in order to so. Eventually there's going to be movements to get the name changed.

[K'Nort]

It just messes with my head that South Africa did it. I remember apartheid pretty clearly. It seems like such a huge turnaround in such a (really) short period.

[Iangould]

It just messes with my head that South Africa did it. I remember apartheid pretty clearly. It seems like such a huge turnaround in such a (really) short period.

There's a town in Orange Free State which was really famous as the backbone of Boer conservatism and resistance to change.

The top cop there these days is gay and married to his boyfriend.

It probably makes it worse for may of the locals that both men come from very prominent Boer families.

[BlairH]

No it's not. Functionally, they're the exact same thing. The name 'marriage', however, holds a lot more personal & social meaning than 'civil partnership', and that's why most gay couples would rather be married than in a civil partnership (obviously they'll take the partnership now it's available though); and there are people who are refering to the partnerships as marriages. Because the term marriage means something.

But if you're a heterosexual couple, why would you want a civil partnership when you've got the prefered option? The partnerships are a compromise- the relationships get legally recognised and get all the legal benefits they couldn't get when denied marriage, but getting the lesser term in order to so. Eventually there's going to be movements to get the name changed.

Some folks want the inheritance rights of a civil partnership, without the status conferred by a marriage, which is why I propose extending the Civil Partnership Act to cover heterosexuals as well as homosexual couples.

Granted inheritance rights can be emulated by wills or even contracts drawn up by one party to the relationship. However, these contracts are rare because they require assistance from Lawyers and legal advisors.

[Charles RB]

It just messes with my head that South Africa did it. I remember apartheid pretty clearly. It seems like such a huge turnaround in such a (really) short period.

I found it odd enough that the United States hasn't done this because of religious issues, but Northern Ireland is going to be the first place in the UK to do it. That's just weird.

[Noah Johnson]

America is now officially:
-More bigoted than South Africa,
-Bigger assholes about religion than Northern Ireland, and
-More uptight than England.

If our economy weren't also in the shitter, I'd be able to afford the vast amounts of booze I need to cope with these facts.

[Charles RB]

America is now officially:
-More bigoted than South Africa,
-Bigger assholes about religion than Northern Ireland, and
-More uptight than England.

And we're both less pioneering than Canada and Germany. :(

[Iangould]

America is now officially:
-More bigoted than South Africa,
-Bigger assholes about religion than Northern Ireland, and
-More uptight than England.

If our economy weren't also in the shitter, I'd be able to afford the vast amounts of booze I need to cope with these facts.

Your economy's actually doing pretty well at the moment.

I don't expect that to last.

[Justin Davis]

It just messes with my head that South Africa did it. I remember apartheid pretty clearly. It seems like such a huge turnaround in such a (really) short period.

I think I was listening to Gore Vidal the other day when he was asked why he thinks South Africa passed a gay marriage act before American does since apartheid happened more recently than our own revolution or mass civil rights movements. He explained that he thinks it might have to do with a taste for freedom. They have more of a taste and desire for it now than we do. I'm not sure if he meant that we've become complacent or that we actually wish for restrictions to be placed on us or that a land fresh with revolution and indepence will continue to push forward to whatever other freedoms it can possibly gain. Or, maybe, those are all just my personal thoughts. No matter what, I agree. So, in essences, I agree with myself. Man, that Gore Vidal is smart.

[Noah Johnson]

Your economy's actually doing pretty well at the moment.

Dollar's in free fall, fewer and fewer companies offer any kind of benefits, wages continue to decline, and one of the most important demographics in America right now is "the working poor", a phrase that didn't used to exist. Economy doesn't look so good from down here in the trenches.

[Zeta]

Your economy's actually doing pretty well at the moment.

I don't expect that to last.

It's December. The Christmas spendathon always boosts the economy for a month.

Of course, the Republicans are trying to take credit for it as if it will last. Cute of them.

[Hoss]

I actually believe that the US economy might continue to look good on paper for a while. The issue, as someone else brought up, is the fact that we've become a country in which there is a growing class of working poor. We have an increasing number of families in which both parents work yet still can't afford safe housing, medical and something resembling a middle class standard of living. And medical insurance and pensions are being cut at alarming rates.

Meanwhile, credit and debt have become a major big business, bankruptcy laws have become more stringent, and mass consumerism has become synonymous with patriotism. It is a nasty cycle. And from the low end wage earner to the banks to the government, none of the participants have any desire to do anything about it . Heck, the folks in the leadership of my party, the supposedly populist party, like Joe Biden are actually voting for stuff like the bankruptcy bill. If you can't trust the populist party to put up a unified front to stop a bill that doesn't distinguish between a "medical emergency bankruptcy" and a "too much speding at Best Buy bankruptcty" then there isn't much chance of anything changing.

[king mob]

That's the same argument as "why would a gay couple want a marriage? It's the exact same thing as a civil partnership, except that it's not called a civil partnership."


Some gay friends in London were among the first to register yesterday. Now they would love to get married as they're both Christians and want the full palaver of a church wedding, etc.
For them, the legal aspects are great but they want marriage to fufill their relationship as Christians.

[Hoss]

Some gay friends in London were among the first to register yesterday. Now they would love to get married as they're both Christians and want the full palaver of a church wedding, etc.
For them, the legal aspects are great but they want marriage to fufill their relationship as Christians.


How your friends justify getting married in a Chrisitan church? This is one of the things I don't get. The bible is pretty clear in quite a few places that marriage is between men and women. Now, this really isn't too be down on you or your friends. I don't intellectually understand why God would not allow gay marriages. But by the book Christianity does not allow for gay marriages.

Do you friends reject the Bible as being morally absolute? And I'm not speaking about it being literal truth but whether they fully accept the phiolosophical and moral teachings of the Bible? And if they don't, then why would they consider themselves Christian?

[Adam Crocker]

Some gay friends in London were among the first to register yesterday. Now they would love to get married as they're both Christians and want the full palaver of a church wedding, etc.
For them, the legal aspects are great but they want marriage to fufill their relationship as Christians.

Well technically Hoss is right here, though that begs the question, does Civil Partnerships necessarily disallow from gay couples holding separate wedding ceremonies in those Churches that choose to allow them? Because I know that depending on the congregation, the United Church in the U.S. performs wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

[west3man]

How your friends justify getting married in a Chrisitan church? This is one of the things I don't get. The bible is pretty clear in quite a few places that marriage is between men and women. Now, this really isn't too be down on you or your friends. I don't intellectually understand why God would not allow gay marriages. But by the book Christianity does not allow for gay marriages.

Do you friends reject the Bible as being morally absolute? And I'm not speaking about it being literal truth but whether they fully accept the phiolosophical and moral teachings of the Bible? And if they don't, then why would they consider themselves Christian?
I'd be interested in that answer, too, although a few scenarios come to-mind.

One is that there are still people who aren't convinced that the Bible truly DOES say anything about homosexuality, itself.

[king mob]

How your friends justify getting married in a Chrisitan church? This is one of the things I don't get. The bible is pretty clear in quite a few places that marriage is between men and women. Now, this really isn't too be down on you or your friends. I don't intellectually understand why God would not allow gay marriages. But by the book Christianity does not allow for gay marriages.

Do you friends reject the Bible as being morally absolute? And I'm not speaking about it being literal truth but whether they fully accept the phiolosophical and moral teachings of the Bible? And if they don't, then why would they consider themselves Christian?


Well they're Christians and i'm not so they could answer better than me, but i'm sure it's something with believing in God and God loving all his people and all that Christian stuff about love and stuff.

[Hoss]

One is that there are still people who aren't convinced that the Bible truly DOES say anything about homosexuality, itself.

Leviticus 18.22

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."

Or the literal translation from the Greek
"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"


Now, this is most definitely a part of the Bible that I don't understand and where I follow Jesus' teachings about judging. But the Bible is pretty clear about men engaging in sex with each other.

[Dreadstar]

Wasn't Leviticus and the Mosaic Laws pretty much rescinded in the New Testament?

[BlairH]

Civil Partnership Act for gays passes in Britain; Ewan Macgreggor cries out "Well have you noticed the SHIELDS ARE STILL UP?!"

[Paul McEnery]

How your friends justify getting married in a Chrisitan church? This is one of the things I don't get. The bible is pretty clear in quite a few places that marriage is between men and women. Now, this really isn't too be down on you or your friends. I don't intellectually understand why God would not allow gay marriages. But by the book Christianity does not allow for gay marriages.

Do you friends reject the Bible as being morally absolute? And I'm not speaking about it being literal truth but whether they fully accept the phiolosophical and moral teachings of the Bible? And if they don't, then why would they consider themselves Christian?
More to the point, how could anyone regard the Bible as morally absolute? Or absolute in any way?

[Winslow]

Wasn't Leviticus and the Mosaic Laws pretty much rescinded in the New Testament?

Moral law was not. Ceremonial Law, and issues regarding governance were (there’s no Christian “King” . . etc.).

An Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox Jew hashed this one out on pages 9, 10, and 11 of the “Vatican Says ‘No’ to Gay Priests” thread. I thought both Theophilus and Morts did a pretty good job at explaining the different interpretations of the law:

Pg. 9
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=94854&page=9&pp=15

Pg. 10
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=94854&page=10&pp=15

Pg . 11
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=94854&page=11&pp=15

[Tom]

Here's a question.

Elton John is planning on marrying his long time partner, David Furnish. Since Elton was knighted, his title is Lord Elton John. Had he married a woman, she would Be Lady John.

You see where I'm going with this.

[west3man]

Whatever the results of that debate, I think there are a number of people who don't think the Bible condemns homosexuals or homosexuality.

I also think there are a number of people who believe what they believe and, whether they're accepted or not, there's a big part of them that's always wanted a church-performed or -recognized wedding/marriage... and that desire or need is still there.


I guess we could also ask why there are divorced Catholics who still do or believe one thing or another. Despite what some say, many people *do* pick and choose which elements they believe or agree with and which ones they don't. For some, that's good enough.

[Iangould]

How your friends justify getting married in a Chrisitan church? This is one of the things I don't get. The bible is pretty clear in quite a few places that marriage is between men and women. Now, this really isn't too be down on you or your friends. I don't intellectually understand why God would not allow gay marriages. But by the book Christianity does not allow for gay marriages.

Do you friends reject the Bible as being morally absolute? And I'm not speaking about it being literal truth but whether they fully accept the phiolosophical and moral teachings of the Bible? And if they don't, then why would they consider themselves Christian?

There are several Christian denominations that take the view that the Biblical proscription of homosexuality is as relevant to modern day life as the Biblical endorsement of slavery.

[Xetal]

Here's a question.

Elton John is planning on marrying his long time partner, David Furnish. Since Elton was knighted, his title is Lord Elton John. Had he married a woman, she would Be Lady John.

You see where I'm going with this.

Sorry, as a knight he's 'Sir Elton,' not 'Lord Elton.' (don't confuse him with a surgeon, however.... ;) )

[Tom]

Sorry, as a knight he's 'Sir Elton,' not 'Lord Elton.' (don't confuse him with a surgeon, however.... ;) )
I knew that was wrong somehow, but his wife would have been referred to as Lady, yes?

[PatrickG]

From Wikipedia:

There are other monarchies and also republics that also follow the practice. Modern knighthoods are typically awarded in recognition for services rendered to society, services which are no longer necessarily martial in nature. The musician Elton John, for example, is entitled to call himself Sir Elton. The female equivalent is a Dame.

Accompanying the title is the given name, and optionally the surname. So, Elton John may be called Sir Elton or Sir Elton John, but never Sir John. Similarly, actress Judi Dench D.B.E. may be addressed as Dame Judi or Dame Judi Dench, but never Dame Dench. Wives of knights, however, are entitled to the honorific "Lady" before their husband's surname. Thus Sir Paul McCartney's wife is styled Lady McCartney, not Lady Paul McCartney or Lady Heather McCartney. The style Dame Heather McCartney could be used; however, this style is largely archaic and is only used in the most formal of documents.

Since this is technically not a marriage, I doubt David Furnish would get a title by extension.

However, if he did... I would think he should be treated as a purely honorary Lord.

That said, I think the term "Squire" or "Esquire" fits best.


The position of squire was never formally conferred or held: it depended and depends solely upon acceptance as such by the local population. Such acceptance is today likely to be dependent more upon a recognition of good manners and breeding than upon the extent of current land ownership, which, while relevant, is nowadays likely to be considerably smaller than in former years. The position is today anachronistic, but in some communities it remains.

The term Esquire comes from squire, and can be used in place of 'Mr.' when addressing any person to whom social respect is being afforded. Traditionally, it was a senior title to that of "Mr." but this distinction is no longer recognised in England and both are used more or less indiscriminately. To use the term when referring to oneself, however, would be considered an affectation.

In the 21st century the whole idea of a squire (and esquire as an elevated social status) is rather quaint and out of date and is increasingly losing its significance.

In the United States, attorneys of both genders often style themselves "Esq.".

Seems sufficiently "noble" without too much confusion if the SO of homosexual knighted men are refered to as "Esquire". (I suppose "Squire" itself might lend to the idea of the unknighted partner being immature.)

Sir Elton John and David Furnish, Esq.

Works for me.

[Gilda Dent]

How your friends justify getting married in a Chrisitan church? This is one of the things I don't get. The bible is pretty clear in quite a few places that marriage is between men and women. Now, this really isn't too be down on you or your friends. I don't intellectually understand why God would not allow gay marriages. But by the book Christianity does not allow for gay marriages.

Do you friends reject the Bible as being morally absolute? And I'm not speaking about it being literal truth but whether they fully accept the phiolosophical and moral teachings of the Bible? And if they don't, then why would they consider themselves Christian?

Though not directed at me, this does pertain to me, as I am a homosexual Christian, and I was married in a church, though a non-denominational one.

There's no conflict as I see it for two reasons. I don't believe the bible does condemn homosexuality, only certain homosexual acts when committed in a certain context.

Second, we are all sinners. Even if homosexuality is a sin--and I don't believe it is--then that by itself does not prohibit one from entering into a marriage.

I have no problem reconciling my religious beliefs with my homosexuality or my marriage because I don't believe there's any conflict.

Gilda

[Loren]

Also, since the lawyers in the crowd started discussing full faith and credit when applied from state to state, what about its applications internationally? If a married couple came over here from Britain before, the marriage would be honored. What will or could happen now?

There's caselaw on this, but I don't have the access to find the cases again. There might have been some instances of polygamous marriages, but the only one I remember the specific details of involved a marriage in Italy between an uncle and niece, who later immigrated to the US. No state (to my knowledge) allows for uncle/niece or aunt/nephew marriages, so naturally the state balked. And the state won in court.

Something tells me that the US will refuse to recognize forced marriages from other countries, but I'm not at all sure about that.

I did, however, find the figures for cousin marriage, as Slam referred to. 26 states allow first-cousin marriage, and 24 states forbid it. Six states prohibit marriage between first cousins once removed. (And in some states, sexual relations with a cousin is a criminal offense.) States that don't permit cousin marriage *can* recognize such marriages from other states, but they don't have to. I don't know how many do or don't.

[Loren]

Full-Faith and Credit with marriage laws is an interesting situation. There is a long line of cases that hold that one state does not have to extend full-faith and credit to another state's marriages if they are violative of the first state's public policy. They tended to arise out of states refusing to recognize marriages between cousins that were legal in one state, but not in another. I think some may have dealt with prohibitions against divorced people re-marrying. Be that as it may, marriage is one of the few areas that full-faith and credit is not absolute.

What state-issued licenses are other states obligated to recognize under Full Faith & Credit? States usually accept out-of-state driver's licenses, but they're not constitutionally required to do so.

[Loren]

There's not conflict as I see it for two reasons. I don't believe the bible does condemn homosexuality, only certain homosexual acts when committed in a certain context.

Second, we are all sinners. Even if homosexuality is a sin--and I don't believe it is--then that by itself does not prohibit one from entering into a marriage.

Reason 1 I disagree with, but it's an understandable stance.

Reason 2, however, reads to me more like a rationalization (assuming that by 'marriage' you meant the same-sex variety). Like "Even if gambling is a sin, then that by itself does not prohibit one from owning a casino." Or to use the more obvious example, "Even if incest is a sin, then that by itself does not prohibit one from marrying one's sister."

[Gilda Dent]

Reason 2, however, reads to me more like a rationalization (assuming that by 'marriage' you meant the same-sex variety). Like "Even if gambling is a sin, then that by itself does not prohibit one from owning a casino." Or to use the more obvious example, "Even if incest is a sin, then that by itself does not prohibit one from marrying one's sister."

Of course, I mean the same-sex variety. I am married to another woman.

You misunderstand. If homosexuality is a sin--and I don't accept that it is, particularly not female homosexuality, for which the case is very weak to non-existent--then I'm constantly in a state of sin merely by being homosexual. Marrying a man won't make me less homosexual, nor will marrying a woman make me more. It's just who I am. The marriage exists separately from the sin, if it is one.

Gilda

[K'Nort]

It does seem that if people are always sinning in various ways anyhow, that getting married would be a pretty minor one, especially if you're then all happy and fulfilled and end up on balance, at the end of your life, a better person than if you'd been left out in the cold. So you'd end up with less sin total.

[Iangould]

It does seem that if people are always sinning in various ways anyhow, that getting married would be a pretty minor one, especially if you're then all happy and fulfilled and end up on balance, at the end of your life, a better person than if you'd been left out in the cold. So you'd end up with less sin total.

The argument is that the Church is being asked to bless the sin in this case.

It's worth noting that at least some of the churches that won't marry gays also won't marry divorcees or people who're unable to consummate the marriage (i.e. paraplegics).

[Loren]

It does seem that if people are always sinning in various ways anyhow, that getting married would be a pretty minor one, especially if you're then all happy and fulfilled and end up on balance, at the end of your life, a better person than if you'd been left out in the cold. So you'd end up with less sin total.

But then, to return back to Hoss' original question, you're presented with the rather unusual situation of having a religious ceremony wherein you're asking the church to bless said sinful relationship.

I can handle a church disputing what is and isn't sin, and acting accordingly. But to imagine a church declaring that something *is* sin, and then not only OKing it and actually blessing it, that's just not a tenable position. And the "less sin total" concept is awfully utilitarian, which isn't a moral view that the church has traditionally favored.

[Loren]

You misunderstand. If homosexuality is a sin--and I don't accept that it is, particularly not female homosexuality, for which the case is very weak to non-existent--then I'm constantly in a state of sin merely by being homosexual. Marrying a man won't make me less homosexual, nor will marrying a woman make me more. It's just who I am. The marriage exists separately from the sin, if it is one.

You're correct that I misunderstood, because it's been a while since I've been confronted with the argument that the sexual orientation itself is the sin, as opposed to sexual acts. (Or lust, I suppose, but that's a sin regardless of the parties involved.) I've grown accustomed to understanding 'homosexuality is a sin' to mean 'having homosexual sex is a sin,' especially since the latter is the more common theological view and we're talking about what a church would do.

[thehod]

The fact that they are called "civil partnerships" in law I think will mean squat in the long run.

Common usage defines what a word means, not law and not even religion.

People won't be invited to a gay couples "civil partnership reception", they'll be invited to their wedding reception. Gay couples won't say that they are getting a civil partnership in a weeks time, they'll say they are getting married in a weeks time.

If it looks like a duck....

[king mob]

Gay couples won't say that they are getting a civil partnership in a weeks time, they'll say they are getting married in a weeks time.



Thats how its worded on my friends wedding invite.

God, the reception is going be happy house all bloody night...

[Paul McEnery]

But then, to return back to Hoss' original question, you're presented with the rather unusual situation of having a religious ceremony wherein you're asking the church to bless said sinful relationship.

I can handle a church disputing what is and isn't sin, and acting accordingly. But to imagine a church declaring that something *is* sin, and then not only OKing it and actually blessing it, that's just not a tenable position. And the "less sin total" concept is awfully utilitarian, which isn't a moral view that the church has traditionally favored.
Well exactly.

The church has to do a rethink.

The basis for for discrimination is purely emotional, the disgust felt by most straight people when considering a gay sex act. It's equated with the disgust you have for having sex with your own mum, or with a dog. Of course, people forget they also have disgust for having sex with anyone they're not attracted to -- and that gay people have the same disgust when thinking about straight sex.

If we're to think about sin -- and I really wish we wouldn't -- then the real biblical sin for gay people would be to go against their own nature and have sex with straight people. Paradoxically, then, it's the scared-straight brigade who are causing people to sin.

[Slam_Bradley]

What state-issued licenses are other states obligated to recognize under Full Faith & Credit? States usually accept out-of-state driver's licenses, but they're not constitutionally required to do so.


I'm not 100% sure, Loren. This is something that I'm flashing back too from Con Law in law school. It's not an area that I work in or have more than a passing interest in. I definitely remember the line of cases dealing with recognition of marriages though.

[Iangould]

I can handle a church disputing what is and isn't sin, and acting accordingly. But to imagine a church declaring that something *is* sin, and then not only OKing it and actually blessing it, that's just not a tenable position. And the "less sin total" concept is awfully utilitarian, which isn't a moral view that the church has traditionally favored.

Some Churches (such as the Anglican and Catholic Churches) already refuse to celebrate marriages for divorcees and, in the case of the catholics at least, marriages involving people who due to a physical disability are unable to consummate the marriage.

Many synagogues refuse to celebrate mixed marriages unless the non-Jewish partner agrees to convert.

Churches are private institutions which can choose on whatever grounds they think are valid which marriages they'll perform.

This shouldn't have any bearing on which marriages the State chooses to recognise.