Gay "marriage" proposals unveiled in the UK

Reuters ^ | June 30, 2003 | Reuters

[ejdrapes]

Gay "marriage" proposals unveiled

LONDON (Reuters) - The government has unveiled the possibility of gay "marriage" to raised eyebrows among church groups and mixed feelings among gay-rights campaigners.

In an unlikely twist, one prominent campaigner branded the proposal to give legal status to same-sex couples as "heterophobic".

The reforms are aimed at easing some of the problems that gay couples face, including missing out on rights to pensions, death-benefits and alimony.

Couples would make a formal, legal commitment to each other by registering their relationship as a "Civil Partnership".

They follow similar proposals in the U.K. last year which would allow transsexuals to marry under their adopted sex.

"Civil Partnership registration would...open the way to respect, recognition and justice for those who have been denied it too long," Jacqui Smith, deputy minister for Women and Equality said on Monday.

Gay couples would gain joint pension benefits; the option of taking parental responsibility for each other's children, and might be obliged to maintain each other financially, the government said.

In the event of one partner dying, the other might be able to claim benefits and compensation.

The Christian charity CARE raised concerns over who would benefit from the new status. "What do we define as a gay relationship?" asked a spokesman. "Is it after five weeks; five days, five minutes?"

The 1.7 million-strong Church of England said it recognised the injustice suffered by many gay couples, but feared the proposals would undermine the institution of marriage.

Its top cleric, the Archbishop of Canterbury -- who last month expressed dismay that a Canadian bishop had decided to authorise same-sex blessings -- has yet to comment.

While some gay rights groups welcomed the reforms, campaigner Peter Tatchell found himself in the unusual position of attacking them.

"It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples", he said. He called the reforms "an unimaginative, watered-down version of marriage", and demanded a complete revision of the legal framework surrounding marriage.

Nine European countries already legally recognise same-sex partnerships: The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Portugal, France, Germany and Spain.

[Calpernia]

ping

[Sacajaweau]

Hypothetical: So what's to prevent me from teaming with a friend, signing a Civil Relationship paper, and getting the benies from the government. Do you have to be a homosexual?? Of course not. That's my private business! The whole thing is a money scam.

[johniegrad]

Doesn't anybody have any good news these days?

[longtermmemmory]

you are right it is a money scam. A scam that rewards a behavior.


Substitute the words pedophile, beastialist, BDSM-ers for homosexual and you achieve the same absurdity. The staff writer at reuters who wrote this is probably a homosexual activist.

[Savage Beast]

There is no reason why homosexuals should not be permitted to enter into a legal contract for such benefits as inheritance, power of attorney, pension benefits, etc.

[tomahawk]

Western civilization is just about done.

[longtermmemmory]

I had this discussion. The problem for homosexual activists is that private contracts are not in your face enough. They wanted "in your face" acceptance they do not want "breeders" telling them where and when they can celebrate they sexuality.

These people had no interest in private agreements because it did not guarantee acess to money. They did not guarantee the ability to divert inheritance from families who knew nothing about secret lives without documents.

BTW time to get rid of common law marriage. You don't want to get accidentally married to a room mate or boarder who has a secret in the closet.

[Dimensio]

Hypothetical: So what's to prevent me from teaming with a friend, signing a Civil Relationship paper, and getting the benies from the government. Do you have to be a homosexual?? Of course not. That's my private business! The whole thing is a money scam.

What is to prevent you from doing the same thing with a friend of the opposite gender? Does a person need to be a heterosexual in order to get married to a person of the opposite gender? Of course not! That's their private business!

Is opposite-gender marriage therefore a scam?

[Dimensio]

They did not guarantee the ability to divert inheritance from families who knew nothing about secret lives without documents.

So do you agree with a family's "right" to usurp a person's will because they disapproved of the relative's homosexuality? (I'm not speaking of cases where the person was married and carrying on a 'secret life', I'm speaking primarily of parents who did not approve of their son's or daughter's relationship).

[Kahonek]

"Hypothetical: So what's to prevent me from teaming with a friend, signing a Civil Relationship paper, and getting the benies from the government. Do you have to be a homosexual?? Of course not. That's my private business! The whole thing is a money scam."

I personally know heterosexuals who have gotten married just for immigration reasons. Sounds to me like the whole heterosexual marriage thing is an immigration scam.

[longtermmemmory]

its called marriage fraud. There are laws (immigration comes to mind) which prohibit sham marriages for ulterior motives.

this will come "out" for death benefits from "common law" marriages.

[longtermmemmory]

There is no reason a family can't cut out a relative who chooses to be a homosexual. Done pleanty of documents which have parents cutting out children for various reasons. Usually its drugs. Other cases are cuttoing out a spouse in favor of grandchildren. (or just natural grandchildren not step children)

[Dimensio]

You didn't answer my question, or if you did you did so in a cryptic nature. I'm speaking of relatives who go to court to usurp the Last Will and Testament of a homosexual relative to prevent the deceased's partner from receving his or her designated inheritance.

[Dimensio]

So why would it not be fraud if two heterosexuals of the same gender did such a thing?

[longtermmemmory]

it would be fraud. But like the immigration case, proof is difficult despite actual efforts. How is an employer going to ferrit out fraud? how will the employer do this without charges of discrimination? Even if an emplloyer hires survalence detectives and proves fraud, the homosexuals would have a hissy fit at the effort.

the propossed ammendment:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

"Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."