I'm going to wade in on this one, and come out against the current bill being pushed by Unelected ZaNu Shameron and his diktat-stasi. </mailite hyperbole>

Seriously though. Labour bodged this nearly ten years ago, meaning the wound now has to be picked open again. The current bill has flaws big enough to drive a truck through. A few which jump to mind:

1) Forced conversion of current civil partnerships: This is wrong, some people appreciate the distinction. CPs should be extended to include straight couples, and the option to convert (free of charge) should be available for those who want it.

2) Religious institutions are still banned from performing gay weddings: Whether they would like to or not. Why can't someone be married in a religious service if their particular place of worship is happy to offer it? I don't agree with forcing venues that don't wish to comply, but to continue this blanket ban serves nobody.

3) No recompense for trans people who's marriages were forcibly dissolved: (at the time of re-assignment, in exchange for legal recognition of their gender.) They must now re-marry their original partners.

All that is going to happen is that these issues will be kicked into the long grass for another decade. This bill does not deliver equality, it's a patronising half-measure which changes a word and tells gay people they should thank the Conservatives for being so much more liberal than Labour. Fuck off.

_________________
Soppy anti-British, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-immigration, anti-family nonentity

Oh, I agree with your points - there was a site wandering around Twitter this morning that said very much the same thing - but I support this as a first step. Whether it's a half-step, only half-baked or whatever, I think getting this bit done *first* and then tackling the rest may be a safer bet.

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

I do see the logic of 'its better than nothing', but it feels rather like we were at this point 10 years ago, and it should have been addressed properly then. It amazes me that basic equality is even a point which warrants parliamentary debate.

_________________
Soppy anti-British, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-immigration, anti-family nonentity

It's refreshing to hear some criticism of the bill which isn't an Archbishop somewhere telling us we'll all rot in hell for supporting it, I will be honest.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

Totally agree with the last bit, and I have to say I'm a little puzzled as to why the time frame is so long. Surely it doesn't take up to three years to write a bit of paper saying "gayz canz lieks gets married now okay?", correct?

I think what's needed is someone to stand up and - in plain English - explain what will happen and what this entails. You know, something like this:
"This change to the legal definition of marriage will allow same-sex partners to be married under civil law. Whilst we understand that some religious groups are not in support of this change, we wish to stress the point that we are not forcing religious institutions to recognise or perform same-sex marriages" and so on.

How long until it goes beyond same-sex, though? When are we going to open it up to work around transgender/genderqueer and so on? That's something I'd like to know.

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

I agree with everything you said Timbo, and yet like Althea, I support the bill and I intend to take full advantage of the rights it will give me. My excuse is that I'm ill and I'd like to get married before I get worse. It would be nicer to be recognised as a complete human being, but hey I'll just have to put up with the scraps I'm fed.

A propos of point #1, I'm torn between your suggestion (the French version of the civil partnership, the Pacs, is open to straight people) and the simpler either-or version proposed by Cameron. What's great about the Pacs is that it's extremely easy to do and to dissolve — you just make an appointment at the town hall, sign a couple of papers, and in half an hour, for about €100, you are Pacsed or de-Pacsed. No witnesses, no spoken vows, no palaver. As a result it can be celebrated any way you wish, from a full carriage-and-confetti spectacle to two people sitting in an office signing forms. If marriage (and divorce) were made that easy in the UK, and greater space was given to the couple to decide what kind of ceremony they wanted, there'd be no call for civil partnerships.

Gods, you'd have to be an accountant to just do that, wouldn't you?

Most people would at least go out for a nice meal or a bit of wine after.

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

It's what I did. On the way to work. I did organise a piss-up the following weekend, though.

It is incredible that it's worth time in parliament, but it should definitely happen. The idea of civil partnerships was a start that should never have been the start. It gives couples the same rights as those in civil marriages, but isn't called a marriage? I'd rather marry my boyfriend, not sign a form for something that sounds like a business transaction.

In response to Timbo's points, why does there even need to be a civil partnership at all, either for straight or gay couples? It should go. If couples want to make a commitment, then make it marriage. There's no need for civil partnerships when civil marriage exists for all - if we start offering different levels of partnerships, it'll end up like a competition.

I agree that religious institutions should be allowed to perform same-sex weddings if they want to, just the same as they are allowed to perform opposite-sex weddings at their discretion now. And on the subject of trans people, I don't agree with forcibly dissolving marriages because one person changes gender, and these decisions should be annulled so they are married again.

Did anyone else just see the interview on the subject on C4 News? Jon Snow definitely wasn't holding back from letting the woman who reckoned that this was going to make the words "husband" and "wife" obsolete and undermine the institution of marriage know what he thought.

_________________
"If the past really is a foreign country, I'm surprised that 'The Daily Mail' would want to live there.” - Roger Quimbly

One more thought:


That could happen anyway. Last time the Conservatives were in power, they stayed for 18 years. I know it doesn't bear thinking about, but we could be stuck with a Tory government for another decade or more. The last one delivered section 28 and couldn't even bring itself to equalise the age of sexual consent for gay and straight men. What Cameron is proposing is indeed "a patronising half-measure" but I don't foresee an administration led by George Osborne or Boris Johnson offering better.

Also, as the government has promised a free vote, it will be an opportunity to remind the electorate which Conservative MPs are out-and-out homophobes.

Apparently tonight's Newsnight on BBC Two (as in... now) will look at gay marriage.

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

The Conservative's 2010 equality manifesto quite clearly states that the party will consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage. During the interview you saw, the woman claimed that there had been no mention of that. I've heard that lie repeated several times during the last few weeks and nobody, not even Jon Snow, has challenged it.

According to the Tories the 2010 manifesto was rendered null and void by the Coalition Agreement. It's a sort of super get out of jail card.

I did giggle when she said it would legalise threesomes, never knew they were illegal in the first place.

The thing that the antis dont seem to get is that everyone calls a civil partnership a marriage anyway. I have been to two ceremonies, no one said "Congratulations on your civil partnership" or "here is your civil partnership present". If they want to defend the special status of marriage then they are too late.

_________________
Blog...http://itsjustahobby.wordpress.com/

Soon, if we are not prudent, millions of people will be watching each other starve to death through expensive television sets. Nye Bevan