jang: (Default)
[personal profile] jang
These unmarried lesbians lost their bid to get their marriage legally recognised in the UK. The government's defence was that, since the rights due to a married couple are identical to those of a civil partnership (which, note, Ruth and I cannot enter into - unless, possibly, we both claim to be gay) there can be no discrimination. Why, then, prevent them applying the label of marriage to their union?

Summary: I disagree with the decision. Having said that, if a bunch of greengrocer's went to court to get their misuse of an apostrophe legally recognised, I'd be one of the morally outraged crowd who couldn't see past the syntactical issue. Conclusion: I am a hypocrite. (But God intended that an apostrophe be used to indicate possession or an elision of letters, not a plural form, dammit.)

Date: 2006-07-31 01:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simoneck.livejournal.com
If the rights are the same, then it's just a case of the name isn't it?
hetrosexual union = marriage, homosexual union = civil partnership. Maybe if we separated the civil and religious parts of marriage (as they do on the continent...getting married in the eyes of the state and getting married in the eyes of the church are two separate things. You can't do it in one ceremony as you can in the UK) then we wouldn't have this issue.
On the otherhand, who cares. If the rights are the same, then it's just terminology and language changes by common usage over time anyway. If everyone starts using the word marriage for both hetrosexual and homosexual partnerships, then pretty soon that's what it'll mean.
Maybe there should be a referendum. But only because I'm slightly interested in how the UK would vote on such a matter.

Date: 2006-07-31 02:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gedhrel.livejournal.com
Actually, I misspoke. The government has never claimed that the rights are identical.

Barrister Helen Mountfield, for the Lord Chancellor, said civil partners were now subject to "no less favourable treatment" than married couples, since the benefits traditionally linked to marriage were transferable.

This is clearly a lie: surely being legally able to call yourself "married" must OBVIOUSLY be considered a benefit, since so many people feel so strongly about it.

To use David Brin's (somewhat cod) rhetorical trick: is their claim that as long as we run as many busses for persons of colour as for whites, then we're not discriminating?

Date: 2006-07-31 02:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simoneck.livejournal.com
I suspect they want to be able to claim that they've provided them the same rights to one audiance, while saying that they've not changed the sanctity of marriage to another.

Date: 2006-07-31 02:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gedhrel.livejournal.com
Heh, d'ye think? :-)

By the way

Date: 2006-08-02 04:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gedhrel.livejournal.com
The idea of separating out the civil, legal aspects of union from the religious side is a fantastic one; I'm sold.

Date: 2006-07-31 04:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sister-savage.livejournal.com
This might be one of my favourite ever posts.

Nothing useful to add though.


jang: (Default)

October 2011

23 242526272829

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 05:08 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios