http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8376937.stm

I quite like the idea of civil partnerships in this sense - I'm thinking it would sort out quite a few potential legal problems further down the line if nothing else...

I'd also like to state that Tatchell is a bit of a twat

I'm curious to see what the rest of you think/can share knowledge with this one

Tatchell is supporting them, so you can't really knock him for that, (though generally he does talk a lot of nonsense)

What's wrong with being able to get married like most other straight people?
It's pretty much the same ceremony for gay and straight couples if you have it in a registry office anyway. It's called a civil ceremony outside of a church regardless.

As far as I can tell the only difference between a marriage and civil partnership (apart for which genders can do each one) is the name.
Are they seriously saying it's just the fact the name "marriage" can't be used by gays that's putting them off and making them take this legal action..
They seem to forget the fact that marriage is based on a religious union between a man and a woman. I can see why many many people (regardless of their religion) would object to the word marriage being used to describe civil unions. Legally they are equal, but you can't force changes to everyone's morals and opinions too.

+1
A lot of these far left protesters are. They don't want equality, they want their views to be forced on everyone.

what a load of bollocks. That couple should get a life.

They can have a civil partnership.

It's called marriage.

Morons.

Isn't that their point? They don't want a marriage, they want a civil partnership.

I think the idea is they want to highlight the fact that same-sex couples aren't allowed to "marry". They are arguing that everyone should be allowed to be a formal legal pairing in whatever way they like.

What they want is attention.

Marriage and civil partnership are the same thing.

So why do they have different names, then? Why can't same-sex partnerships be officially called a marriage?

Because

1. The government is spineless
2. The religious nutters have decided that everyone should bow to their opinion
3. The legislature is inherently fearful of the aforementioned nutters
4. Nobody has examined whether or not non-religious heterosexual "marriage" should be renamed as a civil partnership
5. Nobody has examined whether or not the Church of England should continue to be able to perform legal marriages
6. Given the number of things that Parliament should be looking at and isn't, the name of a legal status really isn't that important. Homosexual couples are still free to call themselves married
   

The thing strikes me as bizarre. They don't seem particularly interested in being 'married', they seem much more interested in making some sort of political statement. That seems to me to be an extremely bad reason for being either married or civil partners.

IIRC I do believe registrars in the UK have a duty to not certify people who they believe are entering the legal agreement for inappropriate reasons. If I was their registrar I'd tell them I was refusing their request not on legal grounds but because their request appeared to be frivolous and uncommitted.

Jon

+1, and I can see quite a few clarity benefits if it was done right, as opposed to the legal quagmire we have these days over who owns what, child access, death etc.

It would probably be a strengthening factor in society where there otherwise wasn't one, though don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everything will just be dandy all of a sudden

As an aside, (when they do) the churches have some balls criticising anyone on such matters when they often struggle to determine what constitutes one of their own reps

You could argue the opposite is true here. The gay lobby want to force their opinion of the word marriage on everyone else.

Agreed. I think it all comes down to semantics in the end.

For some folk, the word "marriage" has connotations of religion. As a devout atheist, I'd want nothing to do with a religious tradition if I can avoid. But then, under the current scheme, I can't go through a civil partnership. All that's left to me is a registry office marriage, which still smacks of religion. Why can't I have the option of a civil partnership, along with gay friends?

Equally, why can't my gay friends be offered the chance to have a proper marriage if they want one?

It's just a matter of whether we want a fair and balanced view of life, or whether an increasingly secular society should be dictated to by religionists.

+1
I have no issue with that though trying to take people to court in the short term is a waste of time and money.
-1
Too many people think that marriage, by definition, is the union between a man and a woman. (And I agree with them).