semiotic pudding

Jul 31, 2006 11:03

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, ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 6

simoneck July 31 2006, 13:55:03 UTC
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.

Reply

gedhrel July 31 2006, 14:03:50 UTC
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?

Reply

simoneck July 31 2006, 14:25:27 UTC
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.

Reply

gedhrel July 31 2006, 14:26:23 UTC
Heh, d'ye think? :-)

Reply


sister_savage July 31 2006, 16:33:47 UTC
This might be one of my favourite ever posts.

Nothing useful to add though.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up