"We can't marry because we're not gay"

http://www.theage.com.au/national/straight-british-couple-fight-for-civil-partnership-20091125-jp75.html

A straight British couple who reject marriage but want to seal their love with a civil partnership were told on Tuesday they could not because they are not gay.

Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, both 25-year-old civil servants, were turned away from Islington Registry Office in north London because the law says civil partnerships - introduced in Britain in 2005 - are only for same-sex couples.

Undeterred, the couple said they will take their fight for equality to court.

"We want to secure official status for our relationship in a way that supports the call for complete equality and is free of the negative connotations of marriage," Mr Freeman said.

"If we cannot have a civil partnership, we will not get married."

A spokesman for Islington Council said: "The law dictates that a civil partnership is only for couples of the same sex. The council must follow the law."

Can britishers please explain this to me because as it stands this story is absurd and makes no sense at all. Of course straight people can have non church registry weddings, surely? Right? Is this a case of disingenious dodgy reportage?

Is it the "marriage" bit that's the issue? I think I'm missing something.

there is a legal distinction btween marriages and civil partnerships iirc

think these guys might be "making a point"

Countdown till K-Lo post....

IKR: yeah now I think about it I agree. "We want to secure official status for our relationship in a way that supports the call for complete equality and is free of the negative connotations of marriage".

I dont know. I get what theyre doing but it smacks of patronising middle class activism somehow. Perhaps I'm being too cynical.

poor registry office person "sorry u guyz!"

unfortunately in britain only gays can get gay married they make u take a test and everything its like a drivers license

SO glad I did not have to practice parallel parking before my wedding.

"parallel parking"

I set myself up there, didn't I.

????

it smacks of patronising middle class activism somehow. Perhaps I'm being too cynical.

― hulk would smash (Trayce), Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:30 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark

gah. what's wrong with middle-class activism and how is this patronizing? actually, i think their move is brilliant, and the best possible end-run around all the separate-but-equal "civil union" bullshit. if tons of straight couples go for civil unions and leave proper marriage for religious types & bigots, the net effect = the normalization of true gay marriage.

isn't there some trendpiece about how opposite sex civil partnerships have taken off in france since their introduction, to allow people to recognise their romance etc etc etc without being involved in the sordid tradition of marriage? like a solidarity thing boosting the status of partnerships.

i am pretty down with this.

Aye, I'm pro this, for those above-stated reasons.

i had this fantasy after prop 8 got passed in Cali about starting a statewide marriage boycott, in which straight couples would pledge not to marry until gay couples could legally do so. i guess the hope was that enough people would do it that it could hurt the economy or something.

i suspect not many people would put their own life plans on hold for such a cause, though.

But then, I am middle-class & straight, so what do you expect.

xpost, didn't Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie make that claim or something?

claim, pledge, you know what I mean.

did they? i thought they had been married forever.

They did make some statement to that effect a while ago.

It's good to see straight progessives stand with gay people on same-sex marriage. It needs to happen more. I don't think any of these kinds of gestures are wasted.

I've been kind of following Dan Savage's lead on this.

I get what theyre doing but it smacks of patronising middle class activism somehow.

^^^

the distinction between civil partnership and marriage has always seemed like a red herring in the larger scope of gay rights issues to me

Yeah thats what I'm sayin.

red herring vs. bellwether

going with the latter

Also, the distinction between civil partnership and a reguistry office, non-church, non-ceremonial wedding is surely even smaller and totally a semantics thing?

If that muddled sentence made sense.

This is like those wankers who try and make their son join the Brownies to prove that political correctness has gone mad, eh?

Well I'm not about to go as far as accusing them of doing it to prove a useless point - its great anyone is supporting gay rights re marriage. But this seems... muddled. What is it they are asking for here? A not-marriage?

"Because gays can't have proper weddings we wont marry either unless you allow us to not actually be married dammit!"

well, except they're not forcing anyone to do anything and they're trying to challenge a bad law. other than that, sure.

Bad law how?

No, and I wasn't suggesting they were. Not pissed about this, just a bit confused tbh!

if you remove cynicism about motives and who they are, what's wrong with what they're doing? they're legally challenging a bad law in an effort to make the separate-but-equal status of gay-only civil unions really and truly equal. this is exactly what should be happening.

the law that reserves one legal status for gay couples and another for straight couples is, in my mind, a bad law. ymmv

is surely even smaller and totally a semantics thing?

which is what makes the distinction an insult in the first place

don't know why you have a problem with it - smacks of patronising middle class cynicism somehow

OK I need to clarify something again: I dont have a problem with the article (perhaps some of what I said implied otherwise). I just find the concept confusing and risking backfiring on them.

Why is it not called gay marriage?

On a technical level there are differences. A partnership is formed when the second of the two parties signs the partnership papers. This is not necessarily a public ceremony or even an event that happens at the same time as the first signature.

This flexibility means that couples can essentially become partnered in private, if they wish. In contrast, a marriage happens when the partners exchange spoken words and also sign the register.

Terrible bit of discrimination, there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4497348.stm

Sticking to original theory that this couple are a pair of cocks and are therefore legally entitled to a civil partnership.

FWIW: I think anyone should be able to marry, in a church, under a tree, religiously or civilly or paganly or not at all, as is their wont.

I think that's what these guys think, hulk would smash

And for straight people, would not "de facto couple" cover what they're after? (yes yes I know, that misses the point of what they're doing here I realise).

ocnrad: I realise that, I was just clarifying my own position for reference is all. Anyhoo.

So: should hetero couples be allowed to enter into a civil partnership? Yeah sure why not.
Were the differences between partnership and secular marriage designed to negatively discriminate? Pretty obviously not duh.

But a civil partnership in the UK confers the same rights as a civil (i.e. non-religious) marriage. Except that civil marriages are for opposite-sex couples only, hence introduction of a separate law to allow the same status to be conferred on same-sex couples.

As in, I too have fuck all idea what they are actually after.

OK thank you ailsa, i thought I was going mad for a moment there. You put it better than I did.

So: should hetero couples be allowed to enter into a civil partnership? Yeah sure why not.
Were the differences between partnership and secular marriage designed to negatively discriminate? Pretty obviously not duh.

― Herman G. Neuname is the first European president (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:21 AM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

how is "separate but equal" not a form of discrimination?

Oh wait, I do know what they are actually after. Publicity. Me stupid.

(thanks Trayce!)

xposts

Well, the fact that the partnership doesn't have to take place as a public ceremony is obviously a point in its favour for some people and why not extend that right to couples of all orientations? Except I'm pretty sure that in the past most of the rights conferred by marriage/civil partnership legally accrued to heterosexual couples from the simple fact of being shacked up together for more than a fortnight, which is probably why legislators didn't see any point in including them in the new civil partnership law.

think they're after making a point about the ridiculousness of the distinction and that one can be excluded from either because of sexuality, ailsa

crosspost - yeah I guess publicity helps to make a point if you want to make one

Hey if it focusses a spotlight on any inequality in the issue and changes it for the better this is obviously an important thing.

I guess my question is: is there a (legal, rights-driven) difference between a gay "civil union" and a straight "civil ceremony" in the UK at this point in time?

(I honestly dont know!)

Straight "civil ceremony" is called "marriage" which obviously taints it with the odour of the so-called Christian God.

Were the differences between partnership and secular marriage designed to negatively discriminate? Pretty obviously not duh.

― Herman G. Neuname is the first European president (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:21 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

but having a different, "special" kind of non-marriage union for gay people does discriminate, and it exists only to placate those who discriminate negatively. "we have our good, clean straight marriages over here and THEY CAN'T HAVE THEM, but they can have their somethingorother whateveryoucallit over there. just as long as i don't have to see it." there is no non-bigoted legal reason for such a distinction to exist, and therefore, by existing, the distinction legally enshrines bigotry. less so than "gay people can't get married period", but still...

therefore, i view any challenge to the separate-but-equal status of gay-only civil unions as just & righteous. even if there happen to patronizing middle-class people involved.

whom it sounds like some homosexual people have chosen to believe in too dunno why

crosspost

Oh wait, I do know what they are actually after. Publicity. Me stupid.

(thanks Trayce!)

xposts

― ailsa, Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:24 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

yes, because people only ever do things for the worst & most selfish possible reasons. if you ever see anyone doing anything that seems to be decent on the face of it, just as yourself, "is there any way i can construe this as an act of selfishness?" if you can, then hooray, you don't have to think about it any more.

don't have to think about it and can continue to post about it - surely that's what we're all striving for

why are 'civil partnerships' same-sex only? i'm confused by this.

well that's the question innit?

My fiance and I live in the UK and were planning on getting a civil partnership? Kinda shocked to read that

a) This is impossible
b) This would be some kind of political stance?

yes, because people only ever do things for the worst & most selfish possible reasons.

OK now you're twisting the thread into something it never was!

Like, we don't have time right now to organise a big party! We plan on it! But I would like her not get deported, in the meantime!

There's a slightly longer article here, where they go into some more detail about what they hope to achieve by their protest, so I'm willing to back down on the "oh noes! publicity-seekers" front, since they are clearly seeking the right sort of publicity, something the earlier article didn't make as clear. Not that I was accusing them of being terrible or selfish or whatever you think I said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8376937.stm

GP, you can get married in a register office, it's fine. It's allowed!

Ailsa we have PARENTS who would like to be invited to our wedding and will not be cool without like fancy dresses & shit.

you can get married in a civil ceremony, it's really quick and simple. "civil partnership" is a new legal institution to allow gay people to have the legal benefits of marriage.

without being allowed to call it marriage

except everyone does.

i mean, i know peter tatchell's supporting them, but even he doesn't sound that bothered.

without being allowed to call it marriage

see this is the kind of bullshit I'm angry about because the word itself is precisely the least important thing about the issue. worrying about the definition of the word "marriage" is for right-wing numbskulls who think that calling something other than a union between a man and a woman "marriage" is against their god-given rights or something. using a different word is a great loophole for getting around this pesky mental block these people have. let them have the word marriage if they want. it means nothing to me as long as gay ppl are offered the same actual, practical rights as straight ppl.

good old "sordid Marriage" business...

i could be wrong abt this but haven't france had civil partnerships for straight ppl long before gay marriage really became a thing

The certificate we get from City Hall, a secular institution, should be secular in composition and equality of outcome (as in, yes, France - one for the EU?). I've long thought 'marriage' is loaded with too much religious baggage to be the right iteration for secular, state-issued licenses. Any couple should be able to get a wedding license from the state, and marriage should be something non-secular, where who can get 'married' becomes a matter for whatever congregation. People who oppose same-sex partnerships generally do so as an extension of their faith and moral beliefs, so maybe that should be restricted to the religious sphere as appropriate.

I get where Curt1s is coming from but I think there's something valid in what this couple is doing. The most pernicious effect of ceding ownership of the use of the word "marriage" is that - if we're going to be strict psycho conservatives about this - the word has already been "debased" by civil unions, by divorce, etc. etc.

What's a bit offensive about the compromise solution is that it makes "not for gay couples" basically the only litmus test for what constitutes marriage. I can see straight couples wanting to distance themselves from a tradition that has boiled down to "not for gay couples".

xpost obv!

^^ thisthisthis! was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today and not for the first time. state should simply regulate civil unions (and the termination of such) in a fairminded fashion and leave "marriage" entirely to the churches.

that way, gay unions wouldn't be tromping on anyone's "sacred institution" and churches could be as draconian about marriage as they like. would end up an either/or proposition. some would go for union only, others marriage only, others both.

that was to the x

No, it's important that all couples wanting the benefits of coupledom be certified by the state, for reasons of principle as well as economics. Those who want to honour their personal religious beliefs can do so in the appropriate space.

but that's what i mean (i think we're on the same page?)

anyone who wants to enter into a legally-recognized, non-discriminatory civil union w all attendant benefits should be able to. this should be true whether or not they ALSO choose to enter into a non-legally-binding religious "marriage" of whatever sort.

people could also go ahead and get married in a church WITHOUT also entering into a legal civil union - but their marriage would be a mere religious formality that would have no legal significance.

= true separation of church and state

Yeah, if the solely church-married couldn't get married people's tax allowances I'd be down with that. Which reminds me, if you're a notoriously tight-fisted rock star who throws a big ceremonial in Bali and when the 'marriage' goes bad, says it wasn't a real wedding anyway, do you get hit by the government for fraudulently claiming married person's allowance?

i think abandoning the term marriage concededs too much. marriage is an institution of the state: churches can only marry people because they are licensed by the state to do so. so if religious types want to discriminate, they should find their own awkward neologism.

or maybe civil unions for all is a tactically better aim in the usa. but i think marriages for all is achievable in britain given the pace of change in the last decade.

^^^Yeah, Britain has a Constitutional issue being a nation with a state religion, with a monarch as matriarch/patriarch.

Most people who get married in a registry office consider themselves, and are considered, to be 'married'. I imagine they would have a problem with the idea of leaving marriage to the religious. Have a civil ceremony for everyone, after which they will all be 'married' and any other ceremonies are between them and their conscience. It was only fairly recently that the majority of marriages occurred within a religious setting - the vast majority of people in the 16th century in Britain had no church ceremony to mark their union, yet were considered married by everyone, including the church. The key thing is that it's not 'their' word, it's everyone's word, and they have no special right to it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/24/straight-civil-partnerships

married people's tax allowances

This doesn't exist btw. Unless you're over 74.

AFAIK there are no financial benefits from being married. Unless you count wedding presents.

Was gonna say I thought they'd phased them out.

TBF your partner making more money than you is a financial benefit from being married.

that has nothing to do with being married, tho

i.e. if you aren't married, there is no difference in the situation

yeah, i guess. I'll think of something.

yeah, what i'm saying applies more to the us than the uk (by the sound of it).

over here, the religious right has such a massive deathgrip on the world "marriage" that it seems tactically sensible to just let them keep it, and to strip that kind of religious union of the state-sponsored benefits that DO still exist in the us.

the rest of us could mutually enjoy equitable civil unions - perhaps colloquially referred to as "marriages" - regardless of gender, orientation or religious preference. hell, the fundies could have em too ... if they want.

see this is the kind of bullshit I'm angry about because the word itself is precisely the least important thing about the issue.

except to some people it IS the issue. maybe in plenty or even most of your US states gay couples have forever been denied any legal acknowledgment of their relationship whatever or any benefits married couples get or got but that's not the case in the UK. you expect people who really want to be "married" for whatever reason to be detached and objective enough to think "oh but we are so lucky those people have nothing let's be happy" while being pointlessly denied something v simple but for some people v meaningful or try to redefine and evaporate their feelings towards "marriage" as a v important thing to happen in a relationship and wake up and realise that's it's just a word that is meaningless and has bad connotations and stuff anyway and they're better off being denied it

i agree in theory that the word "marriage" should be left to the religious but in practice it's a secular term used by 99% of straight couples to refer to their unions - i can't imagine limiting that term is a viable plan at all. "civil partnership" may bring the same legal and practical benefits but it also sounds like pen-pushing bureaucratic jargon. this is by no means the most important battle to fight but it's good to see any sort of stand being taken against it.

in practice though most gay couples i know refer to their weddings and marriages anyway, regardless of the proper term, which i think is also a very effective tactic.

and i'd forgotten that brangelina had said that - really admire them for that. obviously straight couples should just go and get married if they want as per that savage column, but it's admirable that they're using their public platform to make that very valid point.

u all seem to be 4getting that this idea, (ie ending legal marriages and replacing them with civil unions and making marriages an entirely religious thing) is hardly gonna fly with the "changing my marriage"-brigade

^^^OTM

such a stupid solution to en entirely semantic issue

HRC don't realise that they have to wait until only ppl born after will and grace can vote

I'm not suggesting 'ending legal marriages', merely expanding the status quo (which is that both religious and secular unions are Marriages, as are Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist marriages, not just Christian) to include gay couples. So, a marriage occurs when you register with the state as a couple in some way. Anything else is your business. If you believe that only your religion's marriages are True Marriages, fine - people believe that about lot of other stuff their religion does too.

k but ppl r already "ur dismantling the institution of marriage" for just letting homos get hitched, don't really know how being all, "hey technically ur marriage is TWO things and one of them is recognised by the state and the other by the church" is gonna make those ppl be like "yeah totally cool with that bro"

And if we cede to the religious right the word 'marriage', in concession to their religious views, the next concession will be to invalidate all non-Christian marriages, as happened in India at the turn of the century when traditional marriages were overturned. Words are important, and it's not the right's word anyway.

x-post, no I don't expect them to do that. But I live in the UK, and that's not really a problem here - I think we could quite easily see a move towards a unified approach in my lifetime. And I don't think that just because the religious right get pissy about it people should concede. They're not in a majority.

I entirely approve of this couple.

Civil unions are contracts for familial rights recognized (and encouraged) by the state. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Some, but not all, civil unions also have a sacramental marriage superimposed.

Once both bigots and human rights advocates stop muddying the waters by using the terms interchangeably, we can put this issue to rest.

Some, but not all, civil unions also have a sacramental marriage superimposed.

See now this is where I raised my puzzlement to start with. In Australia, civil unions are, to my knowledge, completely secular. Thats the whole point - you have one if you're not religious or have other traditions or beliefs. It simply legally binds the couple as wedded with the usual official marriage cert. No reciting of prayers, no churches, no religious head doing the honors. I assumed it was the same in the UK. In fact it sounds like they have it better than we do - gay couples can have a civil union! Here that only happens in 2 states, and some politicians are grumbling about it as it is.

Well, you get some New-Age-type couples who will have a secular service and then a (unrecognised) religious ceremony afterwards.

Ive had friends do that plenty of times. Regustry office for 10 minutes to sign a bit of paper, then off to a park to do a handfasting ceremony or say some of their own vows or whatever they like to do. One also included a chinese tea ceremony later on at the reception.

Yeah, it can be very nice - and I think it's the model I think we should aim for (I'm not saying that we shouldn't accept anything short of that - obviously you have to aim for the achievable, but you have to keep striving for undifferentiated, equal treatment), so everyone would have, as they have now, the signing of their names. So they are married as far as the state is concerned. Then they can fulfill their own consciences.

in talking about entirely replacing the legal institution of marriage with secular, egalitarian civil unions i'm being sort of pie-eyed and idealistic. i don't think it's gonna happen or that it represents a real solution to the religious right's thought-bolus regarding gay marriage.

but i do think expanding the legal definition of such unions in such as way as to allow BOTH straight and gay couples to enter into them is a wonderful idea and a step in the right direction. if a sufficient number of straight couples did this, it would amount to a stealthy ceding of religion to the religious.

and i'm not at all worried about what happened in india happening in the us. again, so long as a sufficient number of straight couples were involved, this would be politically (all but) impossible.

Oh, I wasn't seriously suggesting that what happened in India would be replicated in the US, merely that if we accept the principle of allowing the religious right to blackmail us on legislation then we should also acknowledge that they don't see any non-Christian marriage as legitimate.

What about the current "legal institution of marriage" is it that offends some secular types, as it stands now? Im still a bit confused on that point. Dont say "the religious angle" because that can already be completely foregone, as we've all noted.

nothing offensive about it. i just like the idea of a secret migration of secular straights to civil unions, leaving the religious conservatives with what they said they wanted (and nothing else). pipe dream i no...

fuck sake

read all the shite relating to this on revenue page, now I have to go look up whatever the straight couple version of a civil partnership is ffs.

cos they tell you THIS ISNT FOR YOU right at the end. OK not sure putting it in caps across the top is the right message either but ffs