Does the California gay marriage ruling mean it’s time to reconsider ‘civil partnership’ terminology in the UK?
“Limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute,” said California Chief Justice Ron George in his written opinion yesterday, as California’s top court ruled a state law banning marriage between same-sex couples as unconstitutional.
The state’s Supreme Court said the “right to form a family relationship” applied to all Californians regardless of sexuality. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger previously vetoed laws passed by the state legislature to legalise gay marriage not once, but twice.
If only we had a constitution in the UK, then those of us affronted by the completely unromantic, cold and clumsy ‘civil partnership’ being applied to same-sex unions could push for marriage as a term applied to all state-recognised relationships irrespective of the genders of those involved.
As it stands, a huge number of gay people and campaign groups welcomed civil partnerships. I wasn’t one of them.
Why? It’s marriage, that’s why, and the failure to apply the term is a discriminatory sop to the strictly religious minorities who baulked at marriage being available to all lovers—and was pushed for by Tony Blair, who later revealed himself, after leaving office, as a devout Christian. He then converted to Roman Catholicism despite having surrounded himself in government with many gay men and lesbians who we can only presume he believed were good at what they did as politicians, but would nevertheless burn in the everlasting fires of Hell.
My. I’d like a friend like that, who thought the best of me. Wouldn’t you?
This is a multi-page entry: page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4
tags: ceremony, civil partnerships, comprehension, equality, gay marriage, inequality, love, marriage, parenting, partnerships, perception, rights, ritual, society, surrogacy
2 comments on “Does the California gay marriage ruling mean it’s time to reconsider ‘civil partnership’ terminology in the UK?”
May 16th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I’m all for allowing anyone who so desires to get married, but let me stand and not forever hold my peace.
I’m not a fan of marriage — the legal side of things, that is. Frankly, I don’t need a government body to validate my love and caring for someone. I realize there are a few benefits in allowing the government to sanction the union, but what a mess of the people grow apart.
My thinking is it’s all down to choice. Everyone should be allow the opportunity to choose who they want their relationship to develop and grow and those choices should be done mutually between the two lives involved.
If they choose to have a government agency “validate” their relationship, they should also be well informed of the consequences of getting out of it if things go sour or the two grow apart.
That’s it, the answer to everything is education! With this epiphany, I shall solve all the world’s problems!
May 16th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
@Howard: The answer to everything IS education. Which is why politicians always pretend to see it as important but always ensure that what is taught doesn’t involve anything that would rock the boat…
x
have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment. Registration is quick and easy. Just click here to get yourself a free account.