I noticed while listening to the report about gay and lesbian marriage on Radio 4 this morning that they were playing Lady in Red in the background. Does this mean that gay and lesbian people are now allowed to have appalling taste, too? This would be another great step towards true equality - gay and lesbian people deserve to be free from the terrible burden of having to be stylish and cool.
Back to the marriage thing - let's not be too down on the civil partnerships, but I do think it's a shame that the legislation didn't go the last yard and allow total equality. I do like the concept of the civil partnership - I'd be happier with that than marriage myself - but I think that both marrage and civil partnerships should be available to all, regardless of orientation. Still, it's a move in the right direction.
The headlines in the lesser newspapers were a little snitty, I felt - "Here Come The Brides", "Mrs. and Mrs.", that kind of thing - but not out and out bigoted, so again, progress.
Posted to The Big Room by Simon Brunning at December 20, 2005 01:52 PMHaving said that, some do not help themselves. I read that the two guys who got hitched after "Mrs. and Mrs." arrived in a pink cadillac.
Posted by: PM on December 20, 2005 04:36 PMPink Cadillac? I know a song about that...
Posted by: Simon Brunning on December 20, 2005 04:43 PMYou're the lawyer, Katherine - you tell me!
Posted by: Simon Brunning on December 20, 2005 05:21 PMBut not a family lawyer, so I know no more than you. As far as I am aware, there are no current tax advantages to being married. The advantages that there are arrive at death - i.e. pension rights for the survivor and not having to pay inheritance tax. This is what a civil partnership will allow also. That's it. Oh, and people have being talking about having "rights" to visit patients in hospital and other such stuff which isn't anything to do with the law anyway and probably everything to do with hospital policies, which shouldn't have been so damn cruel in the first place.
Posted by: Katherine on December 20, 2005 06:16 PMHere in Canada we had the same issue; it's now legal but still controversial.
The best idea I heard was to get government out of the business of marriage altogether. For tax/legal purposes, have a simple registry of people living together. Then leave marriage up to whatever religious or secular institutions want to make it.
Posted by: Norman Lorrain on December 20, 2005 06:44 PMKatherine: for many, the issue is that name colours perception. "Marriage" is held in high regard by western societies, and to call gay marriage by any other name is to say that it need not be treated in that same high regard, despite the legal equality. For instance, calling a civil partnership a "marriage" would have immediate, worthwhile effects on hospital policy.
On a different tangent... I often wonder how Jesus would have dealt with gay marriage. It's tempting to say that he would have been outspoken against it, but when I look at how he treated other hot issues, such as adultery and paying taxes to support an occupying army, I'm not so sure.
Posted by: Alan Green on December 20, 2005 11:55 PM