Why Gay Marriage Doesn't Matter

[passage]

Ever since a Tory prime minister told his conference he was going to change the definition of marriage to cover same sex couples, and was applauded, I have assumed the writing was on the wall for a conventional understanding of marriage. This week will see a free vote on the subject, and since the only party opposed doesn't have any MPs (UKIP) it

Comments

[ext_1497474]

Given we've legislated on marriage before (notably to forbid polygamy which is allowed by some religions) I'm not sure why a country can't legislate on gay marriage. Though I agree it will make very little legal or terminological difference (as civil partners are frequently/usually referred to as husband/wife, at least in my limited experience).

Tactically, it would have been quite interesting if the Government had bundled the promised tax break for married couples into the Bill and called it the 'Promotion of Marriage Bill' or similar.

[passage]

I think the difference between limiting something and extending something is under appreciated.

I think a government saying 'the only integer you can pick in this situation is 2' is on very different ground to a government that says 'the only integers you can pick in this situation are 2,3 and 5.8'.

I agree that lumping it together with a tax break would have caused a hilarious amount of angst among MPs especially since Liberal Democrats think a marriage tax break amounts to totalitarian interference by the state in people's lifestyle (much like tax breaks for parents and welfare payments for people out of work). It would have been especially enjoyable if Tories had voted for gay marriage and Lib Dems against.

(For the avoidance of confusion I'm against tax breaks for marriage, at least in the present economic climate, but that doesn't mean it's okay for the Lib Dems to be stupid.)

[ext_1497474]

I am coming to think the Continental system has some real advantages. Everybody has to do the civil marriage/ partnership in a registry office- as it is state recognition that is needed for inheritance rights etc. Open to any two people who want to bind their lives together. Then one can choose to have a religious marriage according to the rules of that religious group, and the fact such a commitment has been made functions something like a prenup- it can affect but not absolutely determine legal proceedings in the case of divorce.

I am against "Tax breaks for marriage"- I don't think we should be "rewarding" marriage. I think transferable tax allowances for couples seems perfectly sensible, since the current tax individuals and give benefits to families does penalise stable families. The language of reward is unhelpful and misleading- penalise less would be far more accurate.

[passage]

I was interested to discover in the 75% tax debate that France taxes families not individuals.

For me the issue is the couples penalty in the benefit system, where we effectively pay people to break up. Marriage is rewarding enough of itself without state help.

I did read someone highlighting that there is such a thing as a civil wedding, but there's no such think as a civil marriage, but it still seems like the continental system might make it a little easier for the state to avoid being drawn in to trying to redefine marriage.