Same sex marriage - UK petition result

[matriarch]

I recently signed up to a petition advocating same sex marriage in UK.

A couple of days ago I received an e-mail from the PM's office, giving their response to the petition. Thought you guys might find it interesting:


Marriage - epetition reply
5 October 2007

We received a petition asking:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Legalise Marriage for Same-Sex Couples."

Details of petition:

"We, the undersigned petition the government to equalise the system of marriage and civil partnerships so that they are open to couples of all orientations and to put pressure on religious institutions to welcome same sex marriage ceremonies. The system as it stands it's inherently discriminatory. Although domestic partners can register under the Civil Partnership Act, there still remains great inequality within the system as Civil Partnerships have created a two tier system of recognition maintaining 'marriage' is reserved for heterosexual couples and civil partnerships solely for same sex couples. We believe all long-term domestic partnerships should be recognised under the same act of parliament whatever form that may take."


Read the Government's response

The Government has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage. The Civil Partnership Act created an entirely new legal status of civil partnership, which gives same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain legal recognition for their relationship. Since it came into force in December 2005, over 18,000 couples have taken the opportunity to obtain legal recognition for their relationship and celebrate their commitment to each other.

The Government has sought to provide parity of treatment between civil partners and spouses - as demonstrated by the range of rights and responsibilities that you acquire when forming a civil partnership. And, recent anti-discrimination legislation makes clear that a civil partner may bring a discrimination claim on grounds of sexual orientation against a provider of goods and services who denied them access to a benefit or service that was being offered to a married person in a similar situation.

The Government is required by the European Convention on Human rights to balance the right to live free from prejudice and discrimination with the right to freedom of speech and religion. While achieving the right balance in legislation is not a straight-forward matter, we are confident that the recognitions for long-term domestic partnerships, both for heterosexual and same-sex couples, achieve this balance.

 

[TheEarl]

Where's the link to the petition?

I did make a vague noise to my fiancee about registering for a Civil Partnership, instead of a marriage, as a statement about how ridiculous it is to call two things, which should be identical, by different names. She told me that political statements were all well and good and that she thought I was adorable, but on no account would we be pissing about with our marriage ceremony.

Oh well; I'll just have to go back to my usual stance of embarrassing idiots by referring to gay partners as 'married' and looking confused when they try and correct me to 'civil partnership'.

The Earl

 

[Liar]

Not sure what putting pressure on religous institutions to change their ways would amount to. Their rituals and traditiions should be irrelevant to legislation anyway.

What are the jucidiary differences between marriages and same-sex partnerships in the UK? What legal rights does a gay couple not have that a straight couple do?

 

[Recidiva]

Not sure what putting pressure on religous institutions to change their ways would amount to. Their rituals and traditiions should be irrelevant to legislation anyway.

What are the jucidiary differences between marriages and same-sex partnerships in the UK? What legal rights does a gay couple not have that a straight couple do?

I can speak for Floridians only. There are "domestic partnership" benefits from my husband's company. We were unmarried for years, and had no particular interest in being married (having each gone through awful divorces and realizing that the piece of paper ultimately means nothing but heartache if things go entirely south.)

Unfortunately we hit a bit of an economic problem. I have two kids. Domestic partnership benefits as opposed to marriage benefits, cost four times as much. So we got married for the financial breaks, legal rights and otherwise.

"Domestic Partnership" and "Civil Union" benefits can be weighted to the ridiculously high compared to the theory that marriages are more stable and "the norm" - it raises your social risk, therefore theoretically raising how much you have to pay.

I'm fine with church unions being different from civil unions. But in the eyes of the government or insurance companies, the distinction needs to go away.

 

[emap]

I really wish it didn't look this way, but honestly for gay couples to get equal rights. It is going to take 80+ years and alot of seriously brave activists to get anything moving toward equality.

Not to mention another Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. giving homesexuals and open minds the world over a rally cry. Probably take an act of god as well.

I know I just made it sound impossible, it isn't though. Just have to remember people in a group take on a group mentality, what one says the rest agree on. So if say there is a pro homosexual motion on the ballot all it takes is one moron loudly saying I hope none of ya'll are voting for those damn queers, makes about half of the people who were going to vote for vote against. Oh and of course can't forget most vote for what their party backs.

Really makes you love being human doesn't it.

 

[ishtat]

Not sure what putting pressure on religous institutions to change their ways would amount to. Their rituals and traditiions should be irrelevant to legislation anyway.

What are the jucidiary differences between marriages and same-sex partnerships in the UK? What legal rights does a gay couple not have that a straight couple do?

I don't think that there are any differences between the rights of married or unmarried heterosexual partners as opposed to gay couples under the British civil partnership legislation.

However, parents who are either married or in a civil partnership are both disadvantaged financially under the administration of social security compared with unmarried parents who say they are living separately. This group has a distinct financial incentive to remain out of either marriage or a civil partnership.That may not seem directly relevant but with an election fairly likely both parties are chasing the 'family' vote and it is likely that both parties will commit to correcting this social security anomaly to the benefit of the heterosexual married couple but not necessarily to place gay civil partnerships in the same position.

 

[Oblimo]

I find it interesting that the countries with the strongest same-sex marriage rights are also countries with state religions. Then again, the countries with the strongest positions against gay rights also have state religions as well.

Is this a valid or meaningful correlation, or just a perception on my part?

 

[Equinoxe]

I find the invocation of their "requirement" by the European Convention on Human Rights a little disconcerting.

I find it interesting that the countries with the strongest same-sex marriage rights are also countries with state religions. Then again, the countries with the strongest positions against gay rights also have state religions as well.

Is this a valid or meaningful correlation, or just a perception on my part?

I think that it's just a perception on your part - a misperception even. If you look at the countries which recognise same sex marriages (the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa), none of them have a state religion. A number of states recognising same sex unions of some other sort do have a state religion (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom for instance), but many others don't (Sweden, New Zealand, Germany, France, Portugal, the Czech Republic, etc.).

 

[3113]

Is this a valid or meaningful correlation, or just a perception on my part?

It's an interesting correlation, but not really meaningful as it depends on how much the state religion dominates and what kind of religion it is. A fundamentalist religion that dominates every branch of government, allows unfair treatment of those practicing other religions--including curtailing their rights to freely practice those religions--and creates laws where women, say, can't drive or have to wear certain outfits, is a little different than a state religion that does not interfere in anyone's practice of religion or way of life and, for the most part, pretty powerless in it's influence over lawmakers and the judiciary.

Likewise, a religion with a doctrine that states that non-members of the faithful are evil and should be killed is a very different sort of state religion than one which argues that all people of any faith contain a holy spirit and should be treated well.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I thought same sex marriage was already legal in England. After all look at Prince Charles and...

 

[ltnsfr007]

I thought same sex marriage was already legal in England. After all look at Prince Charles and...

LMAO, JJ I love your posts

 

[Equinoxe]

Is this a valid or meaningful correlation, or just a perception on my part?

Oh, and that reminded me of a rather meaningless correlation regarding gay rights: Germanic languages. Just over half of the nations recognising some variety of same sex union are majority Germanic language speaking, but native Germanic language speakers are only about 10% of the world's population. A majority of the population of 26% of EU memberstates in general, but 66% of majority Germanic language speaking memberstates, support recognising same sex marriage - and of the 8 EU nations whose populations support recognising same sex marriage, 75% are majority Germanic language speaking.

 

[matriarch]

As a same sex couple we now have exactly the same legal rights as a straight partnership. Pensions, the right to be involved in any health problems and make decisions on behalf of each other. Recognised as legal next of kin.

The only difference is the word. We are not allowed to call what we have, a marriage. That word is reserved for unions between men and women only.

But, today, whilst getting the wife put on my car insurance, the idiot on the phone asked me if 'my partner' was married, and what was her relationship to me. After having already explained this a couple of times, I just said, 'she's my wife'. After a short pause, he just said, 'OK', and it was never mentioned again.

 

[starrkers]

As a same sex couple we now have exactly the same legal rights as a straight partnership. Pensions, the right to be involved in any health problems and make decisions on behalf of each other. Recognised as legal next of kin.

The only difference is the word. We are not allowed to call what we have, a marriage. That word is reserved for unions between men and women only.

But, today, whilst getting the wife put on my car insurance, the idiot on the phone asked me if 'my partner' was married, and what was her relationship to me. After having already explained this a couple of times, I just said, 'she's my wife'. After a short pause, he just said, 'OK', and it was never mentioned again.

Governments keep trying, but you can't legislate against idiots!

 

[Vermilion]

As a same sex couple we now have exactly the same legal rights as a straight partnership. Pensions, the right to be involved in any health problems and make decisions on behalf of each other. Recognised as legal next of kin.

The only difference is the word. We are not allowed to call what we have, a marriage. That word is reserved for unions between men and women only.

But, today, whilst getting the wife put on my car insurance, the idiot on the phone asked me if 'my partner' was married, and what was her relationship to me. After having already explained this a couple of times, I just said, 'she's my wife'. After a short pause, he just said, 'OK', and it was never mentioned again.

So it's actually an issue that needs to be taken up with the religious institutions rather than the State, isn;t it?
I don;t care anyway, I call it a marriage when two people commit to each other for life and I reckon in 50 or a hundred years everyone will have forgotten the 'technicalities' of the terminology and will also call two people committed to each other 'marriage', no matter what the gender ratio is.
x
V

 

[matriarch]

So it's actually an issue that needs to be taken up with the religious institutions rather than the State, isn;t it?
I don;t care anyway, I call it a marriage when two people commit to each other for life and I reckon in 50 or a hundred years everyone will have forgotten the 'technicalities' of the terminology and will also call two people committed to each other 'marriage', no matter what the gender ratio is.
x
V

Maybe, but personally I don't have a problem with what we have, it is a nationwide legal standing in the community. There are so few places where the government has worked to produce legality like this for same sex couples. The only reason we are living in the UK, is because in the States we would have had to move to a very expensive place to live to get the same recognition, and then it would only be in that and a couple of more states. Travelling anywhere else in the country, the legal problems would be enormous. But the UK government made it possible for us to be together legally, as a recognised couple. For that I personally will always be eternally grateful.

The legal rights go so far as if we ever (goddess forbid) wanted to legally separate, we'd have to go through the same process as a straight couple divorcing.

http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/lgbt/partnership.htm

 

[matriarch]

Where's the link to the petition?

I did make a vague noise to my fiancee about registering for a Civil Partnership, instead of a marriage, as a statement about how ridiculous it is to call two things, which should be identical, by different names. She told me that political statements were all well and good and that she thought I was adorable, but on no account would we be pissing about with our marriage ceremony.

Oh well; I'll just have to go back to my usual stance of embarrassing idiots by referring to gay partners as 'married' and looking confused when they try and correct me to 'civil partnership'.

The Earl

The petition is closed, but the content is quoted above in my post.

 

[Vermilion]

Maybe, but personally I don't have a problem with what we have, it is a nationwide legal standing in the community. There are so few places where the government has worked to produce legality like this for same sex couples. The only reason we are living in the UK, is because in the States we would have had to move to a very expensive place to live to get the same recognition, and then it would only be in that and a couple of more states. Travelling anywhere else in the country, the legal problems would be enormous. But the UK government made it possible for us to be together legally, as a recognised couple. For that I personally will always be eternally grateful.

The legal rights go so far as if we ever (goddess forbid) wanted to legally separate, we'd have to go through the same process as a straight couple divorcing.

http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/lgbt/partnership.htm

I know. A member of my family has been with his partner for nearly 40 years and two years ago they had a civil ceremony. They didn;t want a fuss made - said they had no need to prove anything to anyone, but it has given them the legal right to be next of kin and to inherit property without inheritance tax and all those sort of things and it is so lovely for all of us that their relationship is officially recognised as having the same status we have always awarded it.
Gah - was that a bit garbled? I'm really groggy this morning. Anyway. It's an amazing thing and it's wonderful to be proud of something my country has done for once.

x
V

 

[matriarch]

And for all those sceptics (English spelling) who said very few gay couples would take advantage of it........this below quoted from a BBC News report in December 2006, one year after the Act became law:

More than 15,500 gay and lesbian couples united in civil partnerships in the first nine months after new laws were brought in the UK.

There were 15,672 partnerships between December 2005 and September 2006, the Office for National Statistics said.

There were 14,084 partnerships in England, 537 in Wales, 942 in Scotland and 109 in Northern Ireland.

Almost 2,000 partnerships took place last December when the Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force.

The act gives same-sex couples rights in areas such as employment and pensions, but the partnerships are not officially regarded as marriages.

On average, 1,621 partnerships took place each month between January and March and this fell to 1,498 between July and September, said the ONS.

It's a rather nice feeling being part of history in the making.

 

[Vermilion]

And for all those sceptics (English spelling) who said very few gay couples would take advantage of it........this below quoted from a BBC News report in December 2006, one year after the Act became law:

More than 15,500 gay and lesbian couples united in civil partnerships in the first nine months after new laws were brought in the UK.

There were 15,672 partnerships between December 2005 and September 2006, the Office for National Statistics said.

There were 14,084 partnerships in England, 537 in Wales, 942 in Scotland and 109 in Northern Ireland.

Almost 2,000 partnerships took place last December when the Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force.

The act gives same-sex couples rights in areas such as employment and pensions, but the partnerships are not officially regarded as marriages.

On average, 1,621 partnerships took place each month between January and March and this fell to 1,498 between July and September, said the ONS.

It's a rather nice feeling being part of history in the making.

It probably fell a little after the first year, because just think of all those relationships that had been waiting years to be recognised...

 

[matriarch]

It probably fell a little after the first year, because just think of all those relationships that had been waiting years to be recognised...

The ones that moved me the most, were the men and women who had been together for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, stayed together against all the odds, against all the unreasoning prejudice, and finally had their day, their public 'up yours' to all those people who say that gay couples can't be faithful, it's not in their character, they're all promiscuous.

Dec 5 2005 was one of those days when I was enormously proud to be British.

 

[matriarch]

Reading through all the myriad regulations, this paragraph caught my eye, made me smile big.........

Officers, sailors or marines on board Royal Navy ships at sea can give notice to the captain (or other commanding officer), providing they are going to register with someone who is resident in England and Wales. Service personnel based outside England and Wales have to fulfill the residence requirements outlined above.

Some background to the statement above:

Homosexuality and the Armed Forces

Details of the policy on sexual conduct in the Armed Forces and the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct.

The issue of homosexuality in the Armed Forces was last debated in Parliament in 1996 and a vote to retain the ban was carried in the House of Commons on 9 May. Much of the evidence for the debate was based on the findings of the Homosexual Policy Assessment Team (HPAT) report, commissioned in September 1995, to undertake and report on an internal assessment of attitudes within the Services towards homosexuality.

When the present administration assumed office in May 1997, it made clear that the policy would be reviewed in the lifetime of that first Parliament. At that time it was anticipated that the Armed Forces Bill in 2000/01 would be a convenient framework for Parliamentary debate [and free vote on the issue]. However, following the announcement on 27 September 1999 of the judgement by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against the MOD in the cases brought by four homosexual ex-Service personnel (Lustig-Prean, Beckett, Smith and Grady), there was an urgent need to review existing policy on the employment of homosexuals in the UK Armed Forces. The Court ruled that all four applicants had their rights violated in respect of Article 8, the right to respect for private life, and further ruled in the case of two of them that their rights had also been violated under Article 13, the right to an effective domestic remedy.

In response to the ECHR ruling on 27 Sep 99, the then Secretary of State stated that, "The UK Government, like all governments, has to accept the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. The details of this complex judgement and its practical implications are being studied carefully. After consulting the Service Chiefs, Ministers will be making their recommendations in a timely manner. In the meantime, cases in the system will be put on hold." Despite previous Service concerns, the ECHR judgement made it clear that the bar against homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces was unsustainable and illegal under the Articles of the ECHR. Following advice from leading counsel, Ministers decided that there should be no appeal against the ECHR judgement.

As a result, the Chief of Defence Staff announced 30 September 1999, that a review of the current policy was to be commissioned, with a view to making recommendations to Ministers as soon as possible. It was emphasised that the review needed to identify a "… long term policy and sustainable code of conduct that retains our operational effectiveness and is within the law."

In considering the options for change it was paramount to ensure that whatever the final decision, the revised policy complies with the legal aspects of the ECHR ruling, is non-discriminatory (ie. takes no account of sexual orientation), so far as is possible preserves operational effectiveness, meets Service needs while, at the same time, protecting the rights of the individual under the HRA. A number of options were examined with the clear recommendation for a policy underpinned by a code of social conduct based on sexual behaviour which applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals without the need to refer to sexual orientation. The policy is founded on the need to maintain combat effectiveness, based on the principles of group cohesion and discipline, which are, in turn, underpinned by factors such as mutual trust and respect, and a requirement to avoid conduct which offends others.

The Code of Social Conduct firmly recognises the right to privacy, including sexual orientation. Accordingly the new policy lifting the ban on homosexuals, and firmly underpinned by the Code of Social Conduct, was considered the most appropriate solution for the UK Armed Forces.

The "Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct" sets out a policy based on behaviour and whether an individual’s conduct may impact adversely on the cohesion, efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service. In setting out this policy, no account or distinction is made on the basis of the individual’s gender or sexual orientation, which is taken to be a private matter for the individual. The Code of Social Conduct is based on an assessment of the potential or actual impact of social conduct on operational effectiveness and, as a start point, operates on the principle that the Services will only interfere in an individual’s private life where the actions or behaviour of an individual have adversely impacted, or are they likely to impact, on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service. It therefore recognises an individuals right to a private life in line with the intent of Article 8 of the HRA.

To summarise, the policy to bar homosexuals from the Armed Forces was not legally sustainable and has now been replaced with a new policy which recognises sexual orientation as a private matter. It was formulated with the full consultation and support of the three Service Chiefs and is firmly underpinned by a code of social conduct that applies to all regardless of their sexual orientation.

 

[Vermilion]

Some close friends of the relatives I mentioned in my previous post applied to have their civil partnership on the day it came through, or the day before perhaps, because one of the couple had terminal cancer. Permission was granted, they were married [yes, I used that term on purpose] and the day afterwards he passed away. At least they had the chance to have their relationship recognised, the man left behind could mourn his husband openly as having lost his *husband* and not just a 'special friend' and, in a practical sense, the one who passed away could leave his posessions to the man he loved without him being penalised through death duties.

Their story makes me feel teary every time I think about it... to wait so long to get married and then to achieve it the day before you die, both a triumph and a travesty.
x
V