Legislation for gay marriage

What does it really matter whether one is joined by marriage or by civil partnership?

For those whose beliefs matter to them, then by all means get married in a church, for those who don`t, get married in a registry office. The church should have the right to marry who they want or don`t want. I suppose some churches will be for gay weddings, so won`t. So when all the outrage,on behalf of others for the majority, has died down, then this will soon be forgotten. Probably for as long as it takes for the next outrageous topic takes to come along.
 
sturisoma said:
all he/she has to do is prove financial contribution to the household and can thus claim money on the sale of the house, even just helping to pay the bills counts.

easier to do after a split, but just about impossible to do if a partner dies without leaving a will
Click to expand...

Again, there is no such thing in English/Welsh law that is "common law" so far as two unmarried people living together is concerned, no matter how long they have been together. A simple, well drawn up will covers financial rights upon death of one or the other.
 
viv1969 said:
Again, there is no such thing in English/Welsh law that is "common law" so far as two unmarried people living together is concerned, no matter how long they have been together. A simple, well drawn up will covers financial rights upon death of one or the other.
Click to expand...

Where there's a will there's a Weheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey!
 
viv1969 said:
Again, there is no such thing in English/Welsh law that is "common law" so far as two unmarried people living together is concerned, no matter how long they have been together. A simple, well drawn up will covers financial rights upon death of one or the other.
Click to expand...

Actually there is, but as I suggested before it's existence is very, very rare. It requires the act to be witnessed and to take place in circumstances that completely prevent a full legal marriage. In cases where it's recognised, it has the same legal (read financial) status as a 'proper' marriage.
 
DemiLion said:
Actually there is, but as I suggested before it's existence is very, very rare. It requires the act to be witnessed and to take place in circumstances that completely prevent a full legal marriage. In cases where it's recognised, it has the same legal (read financial) status as a 'proper' marriage.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about.
Please explain.
 
viv1969 said:
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Please explain.
Click to expand...

Marriages in Japanese POW camps in WWII while not conducted legally have been recognised by the courts in the UK.
 
viv1969 said:
Again, there is no such thing in English/Welsh law that is "common law" so far as two unmarried people living together is concerned, no matter how long they have been together. A simple, well drawn up will covers financial rights upon death of one or the other.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There were vestigial remnants of common law marriage in Scots law, as 'Marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute' until it was abolished a few years ago.

I think Mark is referring to marriages that took place in POW and internment camps during WW2. English courts subsequently upheld some of these, on the basis that they took place in areas which were not under British control and it was impossible to meet the local requirements. They may have used old US precedents for this, but I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure about this.
 
Last edited:
Keith W said:
Which they are free to do already
Click to expand...

actually they arent - they can have a civil partnership, but cannot marry, which is a clearly disciminatory state of affairs
 
DemiLion said:
Actually there is, but as I suggested before it's existence is very, very rare. It requires the act to be witnessed and to take place in circumstances that completely prevent a full legal marriage. In cases where it's recognised, it has the same legal (read financial) status as a 'proper' marriage.
Click to expand...

Including the transfer of assets after the death of one partner incurring no IHT?
 
Source?
 
viv1969 said:
Again, there is no such thing in English/Welsh law that is "common law" so far as two unmarried people living together is concerned, no matter how long they have been together. A simple, well drawn up will covers financial rights upon death of one or the other.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but are you disagreeing with me about being able to claim from the assets of someone you have lived with 'as man and wife' after a split?

on citizens advice etc it clearly says that if you contributed to household bills then you can claim for part of the proceeds of the house sale (the house being the one where you contributed costs of course).
 
According to an interview with Peter tatchell in today's standard, Osborne and Cameron were not in favour of this in 2010 when he spoke to them. So what's changed? Trying to win the common vote??
 
Tatchell is seriously left wing though - I wouldnt put it past him to be spinning the facts to show cameron et al in a bad light
 
Or spouting something - anything - to get his name back in the papers?
 
sturisoma said:
I'm not sure, but are you disagreeing with me about being able to claim from the assets of someone you have lived with 'as man and wife' after a split?

on citizens advice etc it clearly says that if you contributed to household bills then you can claim for part of the proceeds of the house sale (the house being the one where you contributed costs of course).
Click to expand...

I'm saying that currently there is no such thing as a "common law" husband or wife in English/Welsh law. There may be court decisions that find in favour of one or the other, but those decisions are made my the sitting judge, deciding , for instance, if a person living with another person for a given amount of time is entitled to certain assets upon the dissolution of said relationship. But the term "common law" has no legal stance.
 
big soft moose said:
Tatchell is seriously left wing though - I wouldnt put it past him to be spinning the facts to show cameron et al in a bad light
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it takes any fact spinning to achieve that!
 
Being gay is different to being straight.

Being Sikh is different to being Hindu.

I don't see the fuss about calling it marriage? Give it it's own name.

I don't particularly care what happens with all this. But it does irritate me that some of the gay (and straight) community feel that gay communions 'need' to be called marriages. They don't.

Be proud to be gay, and admit that it is different to being straight.

As a straight male, I do think everyone is jumping on the 'lets look cool and be pro gay marriage' bandwagon.
 
Agreed! Sadly there is rather a culture of "name calling" if you have reservations over this legislation, and the untrue assumption made that your are "homophobic" - I'm heartily cheesed off with it - it's just an attempt by a deeply unpopular government to gain a few votes at the next election, and gain some"street cred" while they carry on trashing the country.........
 
I resent the accusation that I'm hopping on any kind of band wagon (I'm not even sure there is a band wagon here) and I certainly don't hold my beliefs just to make me look cool!

However, I do agree that it's probably a desperate and insincere attempt from a failing government to regain some degree of support and popularity. The fact Cameron has done a complete U-Turn since 2010, when he said he had no plans for this change, coupled with the wide disagreement for the idea throughout the party only strengthens this belief.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I resent the accusation that I'm hopping on any kind of band wagon (I'm not even sure there is a band wagon here) and I certainly don't hold my beliefs just to make me look cool!

However, I do agree that it's probably a desperate and insincere attempt from a failing government to regain some degree of support and popularity. The fact Cameron has done a complete U-Turn since 2010, when he said he had no plans for this change, coupled with the wide disagreement for the idea throughout the party only strengthens this belief.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to resent. I didn't direct the comment at you or anyone on here. I mean people with 'influence' through media, such as washed up celebrities on twitter and bumbling political figures. They are using it as a cheap way to gain popularity.

Lets be honest, how many of the Conservative party are really pro gay marriage? As in if you asked them when they weren't playing for the cameras.
 
ACW said:
Being gay is different to being straight.

Being Sikh is different to being Hindu.

I don't see the fuss about calling it marriage? Give it it's own name.

I don't particularly care what happens with all this. But it does irritate me that some of the gay (and straight) community feel that gay communions 'need' to be called marriages. They don't.

Be proud to be gay, and admit that it is different to being straight.

As a straight male, I do think everyone is jumping on the 'lets look cool and be pro gay marriage' bandwagon.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Being gay is different to being straight, so let's rename EVERYTHING!

Let's not let gay people call breakfast, breakfast. That's what straight people call it.

We need to think up a bunch of new names for stuff. They can't call it a car, because that's what we call it.

Actually, being white is different to being black, so let's make sure that black people know not to call things by the names we use.

Honestly, it's so true.. Everyone seems to be jumping on the "let's ignore insignificant little differences and just treat each other as equals" bandwagon, and frankly, it sucks!

Be proud to be gay, black, or whatever, just don't expect to be like us normal people!
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
Probably loads of them. It's not 1950 any more.
Click to expand...

Yup. Alan Duncan for one, who is highly influential behind the scenes.
 
London Headshots said:
I completely agree. Being gay is different to being straight, so let's rename EVERYTHING!

Let's not let gay people call breakfast, breakfast. That's what straight people call it.

We need to think up a bunch of new names for stuff. They can't call it a car, because that's what we call it.

Actually, being white is different to being black, so let's make sure that black people know not to call things by the names we use.

Honestly, it's so true.. Everyone seems to be jumping on the "let's ignore insignificant little differences and just treat each other as equals" bandwagon, and frankly, it sucks!

Be proud to be gay, black, or whatever, just don't expect to be like us normal people!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Perhaps we could give 'them' their own separate seats on buses as well. That'd make them feel ever so wanted and special wouldn't it?




...errrrm, errrrr...

...oh. hang on a sec. there was this woman a while ago.....
 
Nope, not jumping on any bandwagon, I just believe, and have done for years that they should be able to get married. I know that some people don't want to see gay couples as equals in marriage to their straight marriage and it under minds their marriage, what I would like to know, if their are any of those people on here, is, why does it under mind your marriage?
 
London Headshots said:
I completely agree. Being gay is different to being straight, so let's rename EVERYTHING!

Let's not let gay people call breakfast, breakfast. That's what straight people call it.

We need to think up a bunch of new names for stuff. They can't call it a car, because that's what we call it.

Actually, being white is different to being black, so let's make sure that black people know not to call things by the names we use.

Honestly, it's so true.. Everyone seems to be jumping on the "let's ignore insignificant little differences and just treat each other as equals" bandwagon, and frankly, it sucks!

Be proud to be gay, black, or whatever, just don't expect to be like us normal people!
Click to expand...

mar·riage
/ˈmarij/
Noun
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.


break·fast
/ˈbrekfəst/
Noun
A meal eaten in the morning, the first of the day.


This answers my point.

Marrige, traditionally, involves the above definition. Eating breakfast does not revolve around what colour, creed, religion, or sexual orientation you are.

Hardly comparable.
 
So you are basing your argument on the definition in a dictionary?

You do understand that a dictionary definition was just something determined by language at the time of writing, language evolves all the time.
 
DemiLion said:
Exactly. Perhaps we could give 'them' their own separate seats on buses as well. That'd make them feel ever so wanted and special wouldn't it?

...errrrm, errrrr...

...oh. hang on a sec. there was this woman a while ago.....
Click to expand...

Sigh.

The Rosa Parks scenario is completely irrelevant to this debate.

If you are seriously comparing the inequality of black people 100 years ago in America, to the supposed inequality of the LGB community today then I'm wasting my time trying to communicate with you.

There are to parallels whatsoever.
 
joescrivens said:
So you are basing your argument on the definition in a dictionary?

You do understand that a dictionary definition was just something determined by language at the time of writing, language evolves all the time.
Click to expand...

Not basing it on, using it to support said argument.

I don't understand the concept of evolutionary linguistics, please do explain it to me... Evolution should not be forced.

I would say use the dictionary to look up condescending, but I'm currently lobbying to get the definition of that changed to mean something totally different.
 
ACW said:
Not basing it on, using it to support said argument.

I don't understand the concept of evolutionary linguistics, please do explain it to me... Evolution should not be forced.

I would say use the dictionary to look up condescending, but I'm currently lobbying to get the definition of that changed to mean something totally different.
Click to expand...

Ok, well I would suggest it is very weak support, in fact clutching at straws.

:shrug:
 
joescrivens said:
Ok, well I would suggest it is very weak support, in fact clutching at straws.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Hardly.

Is there any real need to change the definition of marriage in the dictionary that has stood for however many years?

I think gay couples should enjoy all of the rights afforded to married couples, but under a different name, as it is, as I've established, a different act.

(I still don't understand linguistic evolution Joe ;) still typing that response?)
 
ACW said:
Hardly.

Is there any real need to change the definition of marriage in the dictionary that has stood for however many years?
Click to expand...

yes I believe there is.

ACW said:
(I still don't understand linguistic evolution Joe ;) still typing that response?)
Click to expand...

no. One of the things I am trying to do these days is not take threads off topic, if you would like to understand linguistic evolution more than I would suggest researching into more using google :shrug:
 
joescrivens said:
yes I believe there is.
Click to expand...

Please expand? Not so I can argue (or maybe argue a little bit), I'm just genuinely interested to hear the point of view of someone I usually agree with.

joescrivens said:
no. One of the things I am trying to do these days is not take threads off topic, if you would like to understand linguistic evolution more than I would suggest researching into more using google :shrug:
Click to expand...

Fair point, but I can't look it up as the definition has most probably changed in the last day or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top