Same sex wedding reforms.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....ficial-documents.html

Here are some of the implications caused by a minority wish.

Why is it never that alterations are never made to fit in with the majority at the expense of the minority?

[jackthehat]

How will these alterations affect you, personally, AOG?

[jno]

of all the objections to wedding law reform, the claim that "We'll have to print new forms!" is probably the least worrisome. All reforms mean new documents.

[Zeuhl]

Isn't this removing the assumptions that the wise avoid already in our own dealings with people.

When i meet someone new and they are wearing a ring on their third finger I never ask 'and what about your husband/wife?'

'and what about your other half?' is much more sensible

[mccfluff]

i don't get understand its even an issue

[Kromovaracun]

"Here are some of the implications caused by a minority wish. "

What makes you think it's a minority wish?

It's not only gay people who want same-sex marriage to be legalised - plenty of heterosexuals are in favour of the proposals too. Your own view is not always the majority one.

[craft1948]

I'm against same sex weddings. I was pleased when civil partnerships came about which to me is all that is needed. It may be my age but I still see a marriage as being between a man and a woman.

[sp1814]

Furthermore:

The other two polls at the extremes were both agree/disagree statement grids. The poll that showed the most support for same-sex marriage, from Populus, asked:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships

They found 65% of people agreed, and 27% disagreed with 8% saying don’t know. They also asked whether people agreed with the statement that “Gay couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples” which was agreed with by 76% of people. The tables make it unclear whether the order of the statements was rotated, or whether they were asked in the order presented with the marriage question first.

[sp1814]

So shouldn't the question be - "Why should the majority of people who are in favour of gay marriage be swayed by the minority who are against it?"

All data can be found at:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

[rov1100]

///Don't use the words husband and wife///

So a marriage certificate will just state the same sex couple's names. Must be difficult in future to find your own lineage and everything will become a mish mash of relationships as many children will be born outside wedlock.

[jackthehat]

....and they aren't at the moment......?!?

[FredPuli43]

Do you object to the word 'spouse' being used instead of 'husband' and 'wife', aog? If so, why? It's not being used for gays in same sex unions.

[andy-hughes]

I have stated previously, and will agin -

this issue is all about something 'we' have, and we don't want 'them' having it as well, because it makes them sound like 'us' and they are not.

Every time this issue is debated, the attitude that gay people are some kind of sub-species bubbles under the surface. If we were as inclusive and mature and keen on equality as we claim to be as a society, this would not be an issue.

The church would rather than homosexuality would just go away, so it does the next best thing, it pretends it doesn't really exist, and if it doesn't exist, it saves the church the tiresome task of having to deal with any issues.

I would have more respect of the nay-sayers if they had the honesty of their convictions.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - to answer your Question - I think alterations are contsantly made in favour of the majority, that's the definition of democracy, which is why they don't become a news item or topic of debate.

Just because a minority wishes for something does not mean that their wishes are invalidated by their minority status - if it did, women would still not have the vote.

[craft1948]

Sorry Andy I disagree..................the church clearly states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why would a gay couple even want to have a marriage as they patently are not a man and a woman. I would mention that in no way do I consider gay people to be a sub-species.

[DTCwordfan]

Are we going spiritual or secular over this....

The Church service is surely subservient, at best a par to the civil marriage - the legal recognition at the end of the service. On the Continent, the civil service is town hall based and before the Church service, usually the day before.

IMO the majority is being swayed by the minority here, not the other way around - wit the stats.

[Ann]

I agree with Craft - How dare anyone imply my husband is not "my husband" after 43 years of marriage - I am proud to call him that and I guess most married couples would say the same. I hate the word "partner" although its easier to type OH - Other Half (could be "Old Hubby" I suppose haha) :)

[DTCwordfan]

I don't think anyone has said that, Ann, and you should rightly be proud (of each other).....the issue is more about a gay couple being recognised as married, in the eyes of the law (definitely) and in the eyes of the God(?)

[jackthehat]

I want to get married because I am *not* single.
I don't want to have a CP because even that disclosed to a third party immediately marks me down as gay.......plus the fact that it is still regarded as a 'pretend' status; neither fish nor fowl.

When asked about my status I want to be able to say "Married" because I want to be married to the woman I love and enjoy parity with those straight couples who already enjoy their married status.......even if they have already had more than one go at it!

'Equal but separate' is no equality at all.

[LoftyLottie]

Nobody is stopping the use of husband or wife. All they will do is make a form more applicable to everybody to make paperwork more easy and more uniform. Just iimagine the amoun of forms that might be needed if they are not changed - husband and husband, wife and wife, wife and partner, partner and partner.......................... ad infinitum. Why not just one simple form?



Sorry Craft "..................the church clearly states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman."

But to people that are not religious as such that means nothing. To marry means to join together which is more appropriate to those of us who object to the Church having any say in our lives.

My husband is my spouse and my partner. He will always be my husband and the words husband and wife will long continue.

[New Judge]

Of course I’m sure somebody has thought of it, but unless the law on the consummation of marriage is changed no same-sex marriage can be legally consummated. The ecclesiastical definition of consummation – which has been adopted into English law - is “a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring”.

From this simple definition it is quite clear what the religious expectation was of a marriage. Since marriage as an institution was adopted by various religions long before governments became involved with it as a legal formality it should be largely for them to decide whether they want their institution changed so radically.

And anyway, apart from that, Mr Cameron, his Ministers and indeed the whole of Parliament have far more important matters to occupy their time.