Monday, 19 September 2011

Why do we need same-sex marriage?

Or to put it another way, why aren't civil partnerships enough?

And if civil partnerships aren't enough, why did the last government work so hard, with all the consultations, research, reports and accompanying public expenditure, to give us this inadequate provision?

And if it is so inadequate, why weren't there loud protests from interested parties at the time?

I'm sure I'll think of a few more questions, but these are the ones that immediately spring to mind.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:


  1. If you changed the words "Civil Partnerships" to "Women's Ordination/ Women Bishops" it sound strangely familiar with what the C of E is proposing.

  2. Stonewall petitioned for civil partnerships because a) they were seen as a more realistic political target at the time and b) key members (mainly the lesbian feminists who dominate such liberal-left groups) were ideologically opposed to using 'patriarchal' terms such as marriage.

    Gay people were never consulted by the activist groups that claimed to represent them. Stonewall have only just acknowledged that the vast majority of gay people want "marriage" - because of the (hard to define) social acceptance implied by the word.

    The legal stuff is important but couples planning their 'wedding' day are more likely to be thinking about venues and guest lists than pension rights.

  3. Rev John X. Leal, let's stick to the topic in hand eh? Marriage (of the one man/one woman type) is foundational to society. Women's ordination is trivial by comparison. What the government is proposing to do involves redefining marriage for everyone - this is pretty much unheard of in any society at any time. Stunning that supposed conservatives are pushing for this measure rather than drawing the line in the sand. Fern Winter, London

  4. When my wife and I got married I understood that I was entering into a union recognised by the state to be the exclusive preserve of one man and one woman. Had the state not endorsed that definition I may have sought an alternative description of our relationship or to marry in a jurisdiction which accepted the tradition definition. I now find that the government intendsto unilaterally and more improtantly, retrospectively re-define the nature of the institution to which I signed-up and have been living in for 15 years. Is it not time for those committed to an orthodox view of marriage to invent a new term by which they can continue to accurately describe the union they entered into- perhaps "orthodox-", "traditional-" or "religious-" marriage? Or perhaps something more elegant is needed...?

  5. Rt Rev Dominic Stockford20 September 2011 at 17:31

    Civil Partnerships were NEVER enough for the homosexual lobby - they were simply a "foot in the door". Some of us frequently pointed this out in the so-called consultation. The Brighton MP who is calling for ministers that refuse to allow such vile occasions into our churches to be prosecuted demonstrates their real intention. it is not enough that we have to accept what they believe being shoved down our throats, they are also seeking a situation where we are to be forced to 'believe' what they do and act as they want as well. Find the Protestant Truth Society website and follow the links there to sign the petition!

    Further, more rant (biblical in nature) coming...

    What is coming next is that we will find the 'legal' wording of the marriage ceremony altered and be forced to use that in our churches (if we act as registrars. Such wording will no longer be allowed to contain references to "one man and one woman". Its coming - be warned.

  6. If you really want to understand why civil partnerships aren't enough (at least from the perspective of secular gay people) read this recent article in the Mail:

    Note that some of the top rated reader comments include statements like "Wake up smell the coffee you went through a civil partnership not a marriage." In other words: yours is a second class version of marriage, so don't expect to be treated as an equal.

    Gay couples want the social acceptance implied by "complimentary, romantic candlelit meals with wine" - and using words like marriage, husband, wife, honeymoon etc - because those are the words everyone else uses.