Ship of Fools: UK civil partnerships not for heterosexual couples??

Thread: UK civil partnerships not for heterosexual couples?? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030822

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I just caught this news item reporting on the failure of a heterosexual couple in England to get a court to allow them to enter into a civil partnership.

I'm confused.

If it's not open to different-sex couples, why didn't the UK civil partnership get shot down as discriminatory?

In France the "civil solidarity partnership" (PACS) is open to any two individuals, who don't even need to be in an intimate relationship. It was widely taken up by gay couples, but not exclusively so, and is now a frequent first commitment prior to marriage. The key differences relate to inheritance and pension rights, in which it is weaker than marriage.

What are the actual differences between a UK civil partnership and a UK marriage?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

The differences were very minor - it was created specifically to give legal rights to gay couples when they didn`t think they could get equal marriage through. A part of the judgement seems to be saying that it is not proportionate to require new legislation when it is likely to cease to exist anyway.

When it was originally created the worry was straight individuals seeking tax advantages would create civil partnerships - presumably the belief was that homosexuality was sufficiently stigmatised that there was much less of a risk of people pretending to be gay to get a civil partnership of convenience.

Personally I think the campaign for civil partnership for hetreo couples is ridiculous - on the grounds that there is civil marriage anyway. I would expect civil partnership legislation to be repealed as the solution to the inequity of provision.

I did wonder if people hoped to use civil partnership to get legal recognition of polyamorous relationships - and this is why they are bothering to push the issue in court - but I would argue that that would be better provided by amendments to the marriage act.

(Something along the lines of: you can marry as many people as you like - provided that all in the marriage give their free and informed consent - perhaps being required to sign the marriage license to indicate this, divorce is from the collective partnership, next of kin defaults to the oldest partner who first contracted the marriage, parental responsibility defaults to the biological parents or anyone named as a parent at the registration of the birth.)

[ 30. January 2016, 12:36: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Here is the fine detail https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Just to say my partner and me have been together for nearly forty years and have no wish ever to call ourselves "married" and give in to the idea that marriage is the only possible form of respectable human satisfaction.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I agree wth Doublethink (as I do very often) so far as current UK legislation is concerned. Without giving it a lot of thought, the French provisions seem like a pretty good way to go as well.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Many people have issues with the patriarchy behind marriage and i thin k civil partnerships should be open to straight people.

Now that thedre is same-sex marriage, i suspect the government wants to pull the plug on CPs - the chuch will oppose this because it prefers CPs to gay marriages - which is ironic since it originally opposed CPs.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Meanwhile the number of churchgoers who are now in favour of SSM is nearly 50% - so the ABofC is increasingly out-of-step even with those who come to church.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Marriages ARE civil partnerships. In terms of legal status, that's all they are.

The fact that in some countries (particularly English-speaking ones) we fuse together the legal recognition and the religious recognition tends to obscure this fact and create all sorts of weird semantic knots.

Although English-speaking countries were not alone in creating a "separate but equal" system by inventing new terminology so that people could go on believing that a "marriage" was something different.

We have basically made a complete mess of the legal categories in an effort to deal with social and religious sensitivities, and ended up with hybrid models that don't have a logical foundation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

To be fair, marriage is only a creation of society anyway (from a secular perspective). If society's understanding of marriage gradually changes it's not hard to see that the law is going to take some time to catch up with that. In fact, perhaps the legal system is always behind, because it always follows in the wake of social developments.

The strange thing is that in Great Britain Mr Cameron wasn't under great pressure to introduce SSM after having already introduced SS civil partnerships, so presumably he had ample time to discuss to what do with civil partnerships as part of the legal discussions and decisions leading up to SSM. It seems a bit odd to rush to provide SSM but leave civil partnerships hanging in the air, without a clear purpose, or even the promise of expanded purpose, as with the PACs in France.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Civil unions were introduced in NZ in advance of allowing marriage to same sex couples. However, unlike anywhere else, they are available to heterosexual couples as well, and some straight couples civilly unite each year.

There has not been any trouble with tax, or people pretending to be in a relationship, etc., etc. Sounds like another bogeyman argument, given that you could marry and do the same thing.

[ 31. January 2016, 05:42: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Cameron had nothing to do with the creation of civil partnerships. They were introduced in 2004, therefore under Labour.

As I recall from the introduction of the PaCS,part of the stated aim was to allow legal protection for non-sexual domestic arrangements. It was intended to give the same protection to siblings or friends in terms of treatment of assets on death and consultation about medical treatment etc.. From that point of view, if I'm right, it goes a lot further than CP in redefining legally and socially privileged relationships.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Cameron had nothing to do with the creation of civil partnerships. They were introduced in 2004, therefore under Labour.

As I recall from the introduction of the PaCS,part of the stated aim was to allow legal protection for non-sexual domestic arrangements. It was intended to give the same protection to siblings or friends in terms of treatment of assets on death and consultation about medical treatment etc.. From that point of view, if I'm right, it goes a lot further than CP in redefining legally and socially privileged relationships.

Oops. Please read the OP in more detail before commenting. Nevertheless I do think that the French model says something very important about the problem with the UK model. It was designed for and addressed at those who oppose single sex marriage, not for those who might want to actually form such a partnership. The restrictions on the ceremonies demonstrate this very clearly.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Sounds like another bogeyman argument, given that you could marry and do the same thing.

In France the argument most heard in favour of SSM came down to social recognition, compared to being PACSé. The popular argument was framed pretty much entirely in these terms and not in terms of the niceties of legal entitlements*.

The whole point, it was argued, was that it was not "doing the same thing" - above all, in social terms.

I'm not sure what the motivations of the couple in the OP are, but do they not have a point that if an arrangement is dependent on the sex of the two people entering into it, it is discriminatory?

This point has been made endlessly about heterosexual marriage, and I have to say pretty convincingly, by proponents of SSM here. Why does it suddenly become a "bogeyman argument" when someone attempts to apply it to a UK civil partnership?

(*The best case I can see for SSM in France compared to PACS is that it grants pension reversion and next-of-kin rights. It does not as yet grant automatic filiation, by the way)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Whether or not you think CPs should be open to straight people- and I don't think I care one way or the other- alleging that their restriction to gay couples is an actionable breach of straight people's human rights is the kind of thing that just devlaues human rights as a concept. The judge got this right, i think: proportionality is important here. If you really want the law changed, campaign through the political rather than the judicial route.
Meanwhile i would like to know what this case has cost and might yet cost (the judge granted leave to appeal so that a higher court could have its say) the public purse in terms of governmeent lawyers and judicial time. I hope that if this couple do eventaully lose their case they will be stuck with a whacking great costs bill.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

The UK civil partnership was created to give gay couples something that would work like marriage, but wasn't called "marriage" so as not to frighten the traditional horses.

If you consult the document Doublethink helpfully linked to above, you'll see that there really aren't any significant functional differences between the two. Personally, I think it was an error not to scrap civil partnerships when SSM came in (you have to allow people in existing CPs to keep them if they want - you can't roll them into a marriage they didn't necessarily sign up for) but I see no reason to issue new ones.

I don't think proportionality is the issue at all. If CPs offered something that marriage doesn't, then straight couples would have a case, and if one bit of law is contradicted by another bit of law, the courts are entirely the proper place to challenge that.

I think the judge made the right call because the argument is nonsense. A CP and marriage are functionally the same. The fact that you think one word carries patriarchal baggage that the other one doesn't doesn't give you standing to claim anything.

[ 31. January 2016, 20:18: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

In the Netherlands, civil partnership existed before marriage equality. The order was:

Registered civil partnership was created for straight people who wanted to stay together but didn't want to marry.
Registered civil partnership was opened up for gay people
Marriage equality

I think this is true for a couple of other countries as well.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In the Netherlands, civil partnership existed before marriage equality.

What is the difference between a Netherlands civil partnership and a marriage? Is it similar to Eutychus's French example? What was the motivation for its creation in the first place?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If CPs offered something that marriage doesn't, then straight couples would have a case

What does a UK marriage offer that a CP doesn't?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I have checked Doublethink's link. On the face of it, not much at all, apart from, well, references to patriarchy (which is precisely what the couple in the OP complained about). In particular, survivor benefits are, with an exceptional exception, the same (this is not the case between PACS and marriage in France). What's the appeal of SSM compared to a CP in the UK?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Leorning Cniht: What is the difference between a Netherlands civil partnership and a marriage?

I'm not an expert but I think that by law, the difference is very little.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

In England & Wales I think- though I haven't checked- a CP can't be annulled for non-consummation and adultery isn't a factor in dissolution ( r whatever the equivalent of divorce is called). That's certainly true of SSM, I imagine because nobody could work out, or be bothered to work out, what kind of same-sex sexual contact might amount to consummation or adultery. (That suggests, by the by, that SSM might not be quite the same thing as heterosexual marriage, however loudly SSM campaigners might insist that it is- but that's another story.)

[ 31. January 2016, 21:57: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I just looked it up. There are three legal differences between civil partnership and marriage in the Netherlands:

In case of a civil partnership, you don't have to orally say "I do" in front of a registrar.
In case of a civil partnership with children, it can be dissolved without a judge.
With marriages, there exists a kind of separation that isn't divorce. This doesn't exist for civil partnerships.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have checked Doublethink's link. On the face of it, not much at all, apart from, well, references to patriarchy (which is precisely what the couple in the OP complained about). In particular, survivor benefits are, with an exceptional exception, the same (this is not the case between PACS and marriage in France). What's the appeal of SSM compared to a CP in the UK?

What, exactly, is the reference to the patriarchy in the current marriage law ?

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
In England & Wales I think- though I haven't checked- a CP can't be annulled for non-consummation and adultery isn't a factor in dissolution ( r whatever the equivalent of divorce is called). That's certainly true of SSM, I imagine because nobody could work out, or be bothered to work out, what kind of same-sex sexual contact might amount to consummation or adultery. (That suggests, by the by, that SSM might not be quite the same thing as heterosexual marriage, however loudly SSM campaigners might insist that it is- but that's another story.)

So one can't have same-sex adultery? However this can affect marriages that are either same-sex or opposite-sex (e.g., an opposite-sex marriage where the man has an affair with another man or a same-sex marriage where one spouse has an affair with someone of the opposite sex, the latter adultery but not the former?).

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

But you could divorce/dissolve your cp on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. Giving head to the poolboy could easily be construed as unreasonable behaviour.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If CPs offered something that marriage doesn't, then straight couples would have a case
What does a UK marriage offer that a CP doesn't?

Apart from the word, I though there was a claim that UK same-sex marriages would be accepted by other countries, whereas UK civil partnerships wouldn't necessarily be recognized.

For example a UK same-sex marriage would count as a marriage from the point of view of the US immigration authorities (so you can get a US visa, and get a dependent visa for your same-sex spouse). I don't think civil partnerships count as marriage in this case.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Civil unions were introduced in NZ in advance of allowing marriage to same sex couples. However, unlike anywhere else, they are available to heterosexual couples as well, and some straight couples civilly unite each year.

This is more or less what happened in Quebec. As it is the only Canadian province with a civil code , its National Assembly was able to amend it in order to create a virtually identical institution, open to same- and mixed-gender couples, as a tide-over solution until the judicial ruling recognizing SSMs. As in the UK, the primary disadvantage was the lack of exportability abroad (and moreover in this case "abroad" includes elsewhere in Canada). Unlike in the UK, its origins as a temporary fix have not led to any calls for its repeal. And heterosexual couples have been able to contract civil unions from the beginning.

The (largely negative) reactions I hear from my British correspondents about doing likewise there seem to support my impression that CPs in the UK were generally understood, across all political divides, to be an agreed conceit devised to give gay couples the rights of marriage without, per Leorning Cniht, The Name. Where we have developed a system where all couples can choose between civil union and civil marriage - as in NZ and South Africa - the British attitude seems to be that "entering into a civil partnership" is just the way the verb "to marry" is conjugated when the subjects are two people of the same gender.

Against that backdrop, I can understand why Britons might consider the idea of "opposite-sex civil partnerships" to be ludicrous, and be inclined to respond with "You already have them - it's called marriage!" I do think it's important, though, to note that this way of doing things isn't a necessity, and several other countries have no problem with two parallel (three, in South Africa's case!) forms of union.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What, exactly, is the reference to the patriarchy in the current marriage law ?

From your link

quote:
Marriage certificates include the names of only the fathers of the parties

versus

quote:
Civil partnership certificates include the names of both parents of the parties.

The other differences might be variously construed, but they are not simply "minor" (for instance: vows). Or if they are, why so much campaigning to have marriage instead of a CP?

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What does a UK marriage offer that a CP doesn't?
Apart from the word

Aha, so social recognition is a big part of it, then?

Which does rather beg the question of what exactly is being recognised by the term "marriage", and whether it might have any potentially unwelcome baggage, such that a CP would be a legitimate alternative for heterosexual couples. Why is everybody so keen to dismiss this idea?

quote:
I though there was a claim that UK same-sex marriages would be accepted by other countries, whereas UK civil partnerships wouldn't necessarily be recognized.

That would indeed be a significant difference (I've always wondered how France's SSM might go down in countries that don't recognise SSM). Can anyone substantiate this claim?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I take your point, though to be honest - as a woman - I find it difficult to feel oppressed by that.

I think they would have a better case if the law wasn't coming up for review imminently.

And again, I think I'd rather campaign for changes to the marriage law. It would probably be possible to get someone to put a private members bill through parliament to get both parents' names on the marriage certificate (or the option to have none, one or two) relatively quickly.

[ 01. February 2016, 08:00: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

One problem with multiple different types of union, is that revisions to bits of legislation, pension schemes, employment schemes, nearest relative for the purpose of state detention etc etc get missed. You end of with wierd legal anomamlies that cause problems (like with civil partnership !)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Why is everybody so keen to dismiss this idea?

The claim of discrimination.
If they'd stopped at this:

quote:

Ms Steinfeld, 34, and Mr Keidan, 39, said they wanted to commit to each other in a civil partnership as it "focuses on equality" and did not carry the patriarchal history and associations of marriage.

perhaps reaction might have been different.
However they said this:

quote:

Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan argued that, as a heterosexual couple, they did not have the same choice as gay couples and were therefore discriminated against.

As the court pointed out, hetero couples are not discriminated against. If their stated ideology is true, they are at a minor disadvantage, but that is not the same as discrimination.
If anything, this highlights the fact civil partnerships were never intended to be equal.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Aha, so social recognition is a big part of it, then?

Which does rather beg the question of what exactly is being recognised by the term "marriage", and whether it might have any potentially unwelcome baggage, such that a CP would be a legitimate alternative for heterosexual couples. Why is everybody so keen to dismiss this idea?

I think the big push for SSM was the desire for gay couples to have the same thing as straight couples. Not because there's much functional difference between CP and marriage, but because "separate but equal" isn't.

The visa thing is a real practical difference, but I don't think it was at the top of the minds of many people campaigning for SSM.

I'm keen to dismiss the idea of hetero-CP because there was never any intent to create two parallel forms of almost-identical partnership, and it's not useful to have two almost-identical forms of partnership.

quote:
(I've always wondered how France's SSM might go down in countries that don't recognise SSM). Can anyone substantiate this claim?

In countries that don't recognize SSM, it probably won't be recognized. For the US, here is some information about applying for visas with your same-sex spouse. The word "marriage" appears everywhere, and references to other forms of partnership are completely absent.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Here's the visa issue with respect to the US:

From here:

quote:

USCIS does not recognize the following relationships as marriages, even if valid in the place of celebration:
[..]
•Civil unions, domestic partnerships, or other such relationships not recognized as marriages in the place of celebration; [5]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Eutychus:

Certainly in Canada a "civil union" is not recognized as a "marriage" or equivalent to, for most legal purposes, simply because marriage is open to same-sex couples. In this case, the word matters under Canadian law.

John

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan argued that, as a heterosexual couple, they did not have the same choice as gay couples and were therefore discriminated against.

As the court pointed out, hetero couples are not discriminated against. If their stated ideology is true, they are at a minor disadvantage, but that is not the same as discrimination.
If anything, this highlights the fact civil partnerships were never intended to be equal.

I am having a bit of trouble here.

A straight couple claim they are discriminated against because they don't have the same rights as a gay couple?

Ah yes, the evil heterophobic world we live in, in which a man and a woman cannot walk down the street holding hands, still less kiss in public, without people jeering at them, or worse.

Of course, all the gay on straight violence that they have had to suffer.

Give me strength.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
You end of with wierd legal anomamlies ...

Well, there's one right there!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan argued that, as a heterosexual couple, they did not have the same choice as gay couples and were therefore discriminated against.

As the court pointed out, hetero couples are not discriminated against. If their stated ideology is true, they are at a minor disadvantage, but that is not the same as discrimination.
If anything, this highlights the fact civil partnerships were never intended to be equal.
I am having a bit of trouble here.

A straight couple claim they are discriminated against because they don't have the same rights as a gay couple?

Ah yes, the evil heterophobic world we live in, in which a man and a woman cannot walk down the street holding hands, still less kiss in public, without people jeering at them, or worse.

Of course, all the gay on straight violence that they have had to suffer.

Give me strength.

I do wonder whether there's an element of 'oh no, it's so unfair! We're white, British, straight, middle class, not transgender...We wanna be victims too! Please can we be victims too? You can't deny us our right to be oppressed, or we'd have to face up to how privileged we are- pretty please, nice judge, say we're being oppressed...'

[ 01. February 2016, 16:34: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think it was orfeo that once said sex discrimination occurred when there was no valid reason to discriminate between the sexes.

There may be an element of self-victimisation going on in this case, but on the face of it I can't see why a CP should not be available to heterosexual couples, I can imagine the differences to be enough to be meaningful to some constituency. Is that such a wrench to concede?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan argued that, as a heterosexual couple, they did not have the same choice as gay couples and were therefore discriminated against.

As the court pointed out, hetero couples are not discriminated against. If their stated ideology is true, they are at a minor disadvantage, but that is not the same as discrimination.
If anything, this highlights the fact civil partnerships were never intended to be equal.
I am having a bit of trouble here.

A straight couple claim they are discriminated against because they don't have the same rights as a gay couple?

Ah yes, the evil heterophobic world we live in, in which a man and a woman cannot walk down the street holding hands, still less kiss in public, without people jeering at them, or worse.

Of course, all the gay on straight violence that they have had to suffer.

Give me strength.
I do wonder whether there's an element of 'oh no, it's so unfair! We're white, British, straight, middle class, not transgender...We wanna be victims too! Please can we be victims too? You can't deny us our right to be oppressed, or we'd have to face up to how privileged we are- pretty please, nice judge, say we're being oppressed...'

That puts a rather reactionary right-wing slant on it. However, from what I've read in the news, their position is much more of a left-wing one; they see marriage as a somewhat out-of-date institution with a lot of negative baggage, and they'd like a way to formalise or legally validate their union without reference to the concept of marriage.

It's not an original idea; there are lots of people who disapprove of the concept of marriage. But even where there's no ideological disapproval of it, the widespread popularity of heterosexual cohabitation outside marriage has given rise to legal and political attempts to protect the individuals involved, and in particular their children. Civil partnerships could potentially be seen as satisfying this purpose.

[ 01. February 2016, 17:52: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Yes, it seems to me unfair to assume the worst about the couple. After all, to make a legal case they need a legal argument. "Marriage is a patriarchal institution we'd prefer not to participate in" is not such an argument, whereas "This institution is unjustifiably closed to us because of our respective genders" is. I certainly didn't read anything that gave the impression they were "reverse discrimination!" fetishists.

[ 01. February 2016, 21:04: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Oh, of course they're coming at it from a left-wing position. They may genuinely disapprove of marriage (although how much of that, one asks, is based on an attitude that says that's what's good enough for my neighbours isn't good enough for me). That's why they want to be marked out as being discriminated against. Wouldn't surprise me if they're the kind of middle class people who claim they're really, deep down, working class on the basis of having a grandfather who was a miner.

[ 01. February 2016, 21:14: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In fact, it often seems that the only English people who still have a strong working class identity today are middle class people!

On a serious note, poorer British people are less likely to marry than the rest of society. If this is putting them at a disadvantage then perhaps our society should think about what might help them. It's a complicated issue, but an adapted form of civil partnerships could possibly be of use to some.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's a complicated issue, but an adapted form of civil partnerships could possibly be of use to some.

It's not complicated at all. Except for a couple of frankly irrelevant details, a same-sex civil partnership is a marriage that won't be recognized as widely abroad. A hetero-CP would be the same.

It's only useful if it's functionally different from marriage. What features of marriage do you want to eliminate for your adapted CP?

The article you link to says that people who don't feel secure in their work are less likely to feel able to commit to a long-term relationship. People who aren't prepared to commit aren't going to sign up for any kind of partnership.

And if you go for some kind of very lightweight registered cohabitation that doesn't carry any implications of permanence, what do you expect it to achieve?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

It's hard to escape the irony here. The difference between marriage and a CP is clearly perceived as being more than "minor details" or "functional differences", otherwise there would not have been so much fuss about allowing SSM. Those for whom these "minor details" might be important are dismissed as nutjobs and frivolous. Where were these arguments when the introduction of SSM was proposed?

In France at least, the PACS, open to any two individuals, is now well-established and is frequently engaged in by couples of all orientations and who have an aversion to the trappings of traditional marriage not dissimilar to the avowed aversion of the couple in the OP: it actually reflects social change.

For those who wish to do so, it offers a way of achieving some legal and financial security without all the fuss and expense that traditionally accompanies a marriage, and without any of the religious and social baggage that is so clearly still attached to a UK marriage if only by connotation.

You can PACS without telling anyone, even/especially your parents, and unlike marriage, do so without this being a social insult - and people do.

Why is the prospect of opening this option to hetero couples in the UK so ridiculous?

[ 02. February 2016, 05:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's hard to escape the irony here. The difference between marriage and a CP is clearly perceived as being more than "minor details" or "functional differences", otherwise there would not have been so much fuss about allowing SSM.

The reason for the "fuss" was parity of esteem. Gay couples wanted the same thing that straight couples had.

quote:

Those for whom these "minor details" might be important are dismissed as nutjobs and frivolous. Where were these arguments when the introduction of SSM was proposed?

Nobody was arguing for SSM over CP on the basis that CP couples couldn't cite adultery in a dissolution, or any of the other trivial differences.

The issue of recognition is real - your CP might well not mean anything to some other country, whereas your marriage will, but the big argument was about having the same thing for gay couples and straight couples.

As I have said, I think allowing the creation of new CPs after the advent of SSM was an error, and I hope that it will soon be rectified. The UK civil partnership wasn't created to be marriage-lite, it was crated to work like marriage for gay couples.

quote:

For those who wish to do so, it offers a way of achieving some legal and financial security without all the fuss and expense that traditionally accompanies a marriage,

You can have a marriage without all the fuss and
expense that "traditionally accompanies a marriage".

quote:

You can PACS without telling anyone, even/especially your parents, and unlike marriage, do so without this being a social insult - and people do.

So a PACS is basically a marriage without the social status? You can do that with a marriage - you just get married and don't tell anyone.

quote:

Why is the prospect of opening this option to hetero couples in the UK so ridiculous?

Because it's pointless kowtowing to people's absurdities. If you want something that behaves a bit like marriage, we've got something like that. It's called "marriage" and comes with the free bonus that should you ever travel abroad, your marriage will be recognized by that country as well.

If you want something else, you need to make it different from marriage. Having a thing called "marriage" and a thing that's functionally the same as marriage, but has a different name, is absurd.

As I understand you, a French PACS functions a bit like a starter marriage. It seems as though a PACS is easier to dissolve than a marriage, which I suppose must mean "quicker" - all the difficult bits about divorce are to do with dividing up property and children, and that can't be terribly different in a PACS, can it?

[ 02. February 2016, 05:53: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
It would probably be possible to get someone to put a private members bill through parliament to get both parents' names on the marriage certificate (or the option to have none, one or two) relatively quickly.

FWIW, marriage certificates in Scotland have included both parents' names since their inception in 1855. There is a nod to the patriarchy in that the father's occupation is included, but not the mother's. They have three lines each - father's name, occupation, and whether deceased, mother's name, mother's maiden and other names, whether deceased.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's a complicated issue, but an adapted form of civil partnerships could possibly be of use to some.
It's not complicated at all. Except for a couple of frankly irrelevant details, a same-sex civil partnership is a marriage that won't be recognized as widely abroad. A hetero-CP would be the same.

It's only useful if it's functionally different from marriage. What features of marriage do you want to eliminate for your adapted CP?

The article you link to says that people who don't feel secure in their work are less likely to feel able to commit to a long-term relationship. People who aren't prepared to commit aren't going to sign up for any kind of partnership.

And if you go for some kind of very lightweight registered cohabitation that doesn't carry any implications of permanence, what do you expect it to achieve?

Yes - it's complicated!

I'm not convinced that the poorest indigenous British people are likely to be driven by whether or not their union is recognised abroad. These days it's the better off who are most likely to emigrate.

You could have cash or other incentives for couples who have children and who formally agree to stay together up to a certain point. Maybe relationship or parenting guidance could be involved, or even training for employment or self-employment.

In short, heterosexual civil unions could be seen as trial marriages that involve extra state support. But as I said, adaptations would be required. I don't know what the public would think. Perhaps it could be trialled in certain areas before being extended across the country.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I know quite a lot of couples — gay and straight — who are in registered civil partnerships. Apparently the difference with marriage is significant enough for them. And that's good enough for me.

[ 02. February 2016, 11:49: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What, exactly, is the reference to the patriarchy in the current marriage law ?
From your link

quote:
Marriage certificates include the names of only the fathers of the parties
versus
quote:
Civil partnership certificates include the names of both parents of the parties.

I would expect that if you asked most people what they would consider patriarchal with marriage that wouldn't be what they would think of. My guess would be the top two things they'd list would be
* The woman taking her husband's surname
* The father of the bride giving his daughter away

Neither of which, of course, are part of the law, the second is become increasingly so rare I'm struggling to remember the last wedding I went to where the brides father gave his daughter away, and many people marry without changing their names (or, for both to change to the same, often double-barelled, name).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

It kind of jumps out at you from the marriage certificate, though. I have got so used to both parents' names being on (as they are in France) that I had to dig out a UK certificate to check. When you're not used to it, it looks amazingly patriarchal.

Reading the comparison Doublethink supplied also makes you realise how much UK marriage is bound up both with religious practice and anachronistic notions of property and succession.

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Marriages ARE civil partnerships. In terms of legal status, that's all they are.

That's right. People can dress them up in religious language and imagery if they want, or hold them in religious buildings, but at the end of the day, they are a civil partnership. Something which seems to have been missed in its entirety by the couple who brought the case.

You'd have thought any half decent lawyer would have known that and told them, and saved them all that unnecessary expenditure on legal fees. Oh, hang on a minute...

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

But this is where this debate gets confusing and contradictory.

It seems to me to be obvious that marriage is socially more than a civil partnership, although several people here seem to be extremely reluctant to acknowledge that.

Over and above legal aspects, the struggle for SSM appears to me to be largely about that social recognition.

What is striking to me is the way that in many jurisdictions, that quest for social recognition through marriage appears to run headlong into a set of traditional/religious values loosely associated with marriage that are the antithesis of the values held dear by SSM proponents, such as equality, non-discrimination, modernisation, and so on.

And the way that this hetero couple is not getting much sympathy for (allegedly) seeking to enjoy precisely those values in the form of a CP - solely because they are straight.

[ 02. February 2016, 15:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No, not solely because they are straight. Because, for whatever reason, they included a non-existent discrimination in their legal argument. Because they reference the patriarchy of the word marriage when, as Alan points out, it is effectively gone.
France's PACS appears different to the UK's CP.
PACS is marriage-lite.
CP is marriage segregated. That is the ENTIRE reason for its existance. From a UK legal perspective, there is no reason to have it at all.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Well, what is a CP in the UK and how does it differ from both a full marriage and simply living together?

Children are easy to cover. Here, extended definitions under the Family Law act bring disputes concerning them into the same resolution process as those born in a marriage. Property disputes (at least in NSW) are covered by the Property (Relationships) Act. Although those disputes are resolved in State courts (those arising after a marriage breakdown are resolved in Federal courts, divorce and marriage being covered by Federal legislation) the criteria were amended in 2012 to make them very similar to the Federal legislation.

Just what did this couple hope to get by entering into a CP rather than simply living together? If they wanted more, they simply should have got married.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Marriages ARE civil partnerships. In terms of legal status, that's all they are.
That's right. People can dress them up in religious language and imagery if they want, or hold them in religious buildings, but at the end of the day, they are a civil partnership. Something which seems to have been missed in its entirety by the couple who brought the case.

You'd have thought any half decent lawyer would have known that and told them, and saved them all that unnecessary expenditure on legal fees. Oh, hang on a minute...

I think that strictly, in England & Wales, that's only legally true of marriages outside the CofE /CinW. Marriages in every other church are indeed technically civil marriages conducted in the context of a religious ceremony. CofE and CinW marriages are recognised as marriages per se. The difference may be a technical one but it does exist.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Of course, having an established church whose job it is to conduct religious marriages on behalf of the state doesn't make it easy to insist that marriage is simply a civil matter. Why allow the CofE this privilege (or duty) if it only perpetuates a historic confusion?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Marriages ARE civil partnerships. In terms of legal status, that's all they are.
That's right. People can dress them up in religious language and imagery if they want, or hold them in religious buildings, but at the end of the day, they are a civil partnership. Something which seems to have been missed in its entirety by the couple who brought the case.

You'd have thought any half decent lawyer would have known that and told them, and saved them all that unnecessary expenditure on legal fees. Oh, hang on a minute...
I think that strictly, in England & Wales, that's only legally true of marriages outside the CofE /CinW. Marriages in every other church are indeed technically civil marriages conducted in the context of a religious ceremony. CofE and CinW marriages are recognised as marriages per se. The difference may be a technical one but it does exist.

I don't think that's true of quaker marriages.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

You might be right about Quaker and Jewish marraiages- I believe there is some special provision for those but I can't remember what it is. But I'm pretty sure I'm right about RC and other Protestant Nonconformist marriages.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But this is where this debate gets confusing and contradictory.

It seems to me to be obvious that marriage is socially more than a civil partnership, although several people here seem to be extremely reluctant to acknowledge that.

Over and above legal aspects, the struggle for SSM appears to me to be largely about that social recognition.

They may be socially more but legally they are in effect the same. It is likely that Civil partnerships in the UK will end anyway.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
They may be socially more but legally they are in effect the same.

If the legal aspect is all that counts, why didn't SSM proponents settle for CPs?

If the legal aspect isn't all that counts, arguments based on the existence and singificance of attendant baggage work both ways - in favour of SSM on the one hand, and, conversely, in favour of hetero CPs.

[ 03. February 2016, 05:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well, what is a CP in the UK and how does it differ from both a full marriage and simply living together?

Civil Partnership in the UK was developed as a last ditch, stop-gap effort to prevent SSM, but still allow the same rights (Children, pension, property, hospital, etc.) There are minor differences due to one being more contemporary and the other still having to deal with antiquated institutions.
Here is a link with all the minutia, if you are so interested.
Living together gives you nearly bugger all as far as rights.
More info on that.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If the legal aspect is all that counts, why didn't SSM proponents settle for CPs?

Seperate but equal isn't equal at all.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

If the legal aspect isn't all that counts, arguments based on the existence and singificance of attendant baggage work both ways - in favour of SSM on the one hand, and, conversely, in favour of hetero CPs.

Because there is no real purpose to a CP (as currently written) in the UK now that SSM is legal. It really shouldn't exist as structured and it is fairly likely they will soon cease to exist for that very reason. If there were a movement to create CPs that would be like France's, then you would have a point. There isn't currently much interest, AFAIK.
What you are proposing is changing a law for little purpose to the benefit of almost no one.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thank you. Much the same as we have achieved by modifying the availability of dispute resolution without creating a new category.

Still no SSM here, for which I am rather glad. It gives us time to realise that there should no more be gay marriages than there should be gay birthdays, gay funerals or gay anything else for that matter. In the marriage field, the present provisions restricting marriage on any grounds but age and consanguinity should be abolished. That's all that needs to be done. Very simple, a 2 line bill, and the sooner the better.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Okay for your two line bill to cover marriage.Would religious institutions be able to continue to have their own definition of what constitutes a solemnised marriage ?

In most European countries the state decides on what is 'marriage' , but religious groups, principally churches, can have their own marriage ceremonies conducted according to their own rules.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Forthview: In most European countries the state decides on what is 'marriage' , but religious groups, principally churches, can have their own marriage ceremonies conducted according to their own rules.

Just to clarify: in these ceremonies, churches don't marry people. They ask God's blessing for the marriage that was already conducted by the State.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The UK is fairly unusual in allowing (some) ministers of religion to act as agents of the State in conducting a marriage at the same time as the religious ceremony asking God to bless the marriage.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Yes, I would be very happy to see that change. In France things work as LeRoc has described (although in Catholic churches you could be forgiven for thinking you were at the "real" wedding, with a signing of the register and so on).

I see ministers of religion empowered to act as civil officers in the UK for weddings as one of the enduring problems left by Constantinianism [Two face]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

I see ministers of religion empowered to act as civil officers in the UK for weddings as one of the enduring problems left by Constantinianism

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Leroc - it depends how you define marriage,of course.

A civil marriage recognised by the state is a civil marriage recognised by the state (and indeed by many other,but not necessarily all states).

A Catholic marriage is a Catholic marriage recognised as such by the Catholic Church.It may not,of itself,provide the financial benefits,tax benefits etc provided by a marriage conducted by the state. It is, however, a marriage which is recognised by the church .It produces benefits such as being recognised as 'married' by the Catholic church. For some people that is important.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Forthview,

If you are legally married, you remain so when you walk into an RC Church. If you are married only by the church, you marriage doesn't exist outside its doors. What "benefits" are there beyond acceptance within the community? An acceptance, BTW, that Jesus would have granted regardless.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

If you are legally married , then of course you are legally married, even if you walk into a Catholic church.

If you are a Catholic, and you are not married in the eyes of the Church ,then you are simply not married in the eyes of the Church , whether you walk into a Catholic church, into a bar or plunge into a swimming pool.Your marriage is not recognised by the Catholic church as a Catholic marriage,even although you may ,of course, be recognised as married in a civil capacity.

I have no difficulty in recognising a civil marriage as a civil marriage, but I do not recognise a civil marriage as a Catholic marriage.

The question is - is there such a thing as a Catholic marriage ?

A Catholic marriage confers benefits provided by the Catholic church for those who wish to avail themselves of them.

A civil marriage provides benefits provided usually by the state in which one's civil marriage has been celebrated.

Are things only valid if they are provided by the state ?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Forthview: A Catholic marriage is a Catholic marriage recognised as such by the Catholic Church.It may not,of itself,provide the financial benefits,tax benefits etc provided by a marriage conducted by the state. It is, however, a marriage which is recognised by the church .It produces benefits such as being recognised as 'married' by the Catholic church. For some people that is important.

Of course. A Catholic doesn't call it "asking for God's blessing over their marriage", it calls it the sacrament of marriage. However, in most European countries the church won't perform this sacrament if the couple hasn't had a civil marriage before (the Catholic church sees this civil marriage as nothing more than an administrive procedure, however it is necessary).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Of course there is such a thing as a Catholic marriage. There is a community that recognises it.
So what?

And what benefits dose such a marriage have? Community recognition, yes. What else?

[ 03. February 2016, 19:45: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Okay for your two line bill to cover marriage.Would religious institutions be able to continue to have their own definition of what constitutes a solemnised marriage ?

In most European countries the state decides on what is 'marriage' , but religious groups, principally churches, can have their own marriage ceremonies conducted according to their own rules.

Partly what Alan Cresswell said. Under the Marriage Act, only a properly authorised person may conduct a valid marriage and ministers of religion may be authorised. Those of the mainstream religions are as a matter of course, but it is quite possible for a person who is a minister/priest to continue in that role and still be removed from the list of those authorised.

In other words, the validity of the marriage depends upon its having been performed in accordance with the Act, and it is a purely civil function. A visiting Catholic priest from NZ may perform a service in accordance with one or other of the permitted rites and that may well be valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. It would not otherwise be valid unless the priest were authorised under the Act.

Whether the Catholic Church recognises a marriage as valid or invalid in its eyes is entirely a matter for it, but that recognition is irrelevant to its validity at law.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Of course I know that the Catholic church will not normally conduct a Catholic marriage unless the couple have already married in a civil ceremony.

(I say normally, for there are odd occasions when the Church will conduct a marriage ceremony without the civil marriage having taken place.
In these instances the Catholic marriage would not be recognised by the state and would not have the benefits conferred by the civil marriage)

I am glad that LB recognises that there is such a thing as Catholic marriage. The civil marriage makes no mention of God. For Catholics who claim to believe in God it is important that the marriage takes place seeking the blessing of God which the civil marriage emphatically does not.
Technically a Catholic marriage can take place without the intervention of either Church or State.Technically it only involves the couple declaring before God that they wish to be married in the way that marriage is understood by the Church. In normal circumstances however the marriage should take place before a minister of the Church who can verify that the usual requirements have been fulfilled.

The civil marriage provides the tax benefits and legal recognition of what society sees as the rights of spouses.

The church wedding provides an assurance of God's blessing and a canonical recognition of the marriage.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Forthview: (I say normally, for there are odd occasions when the Church will conduct a marriage ceremony without the civil marriage having taken place.
In these instances the Catholic marriage would not be recognised by the state and would not have the benefits conferred by the civil marriage)

At least in my country, the church is forbidden by law to do that.

[ 03. February 2016, 20:15: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Thank you,Le Roc,for that information.

I agree also with Gee D that whether the Catholic church considers a marriage as valid or invalid is entirely a matter for it within its own community. It does not affect the validity or the recognition of validity of a marriage by the state.

The Catholic Church is equally entitled to decide what constitutes a valid CATHOLIC marriage for those who claim to be members of the Church.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Forthview: (I say normally, for there are odd occasions when the Church will conduct a marriage ceremony without the civil marriage having taken place.
In these instances the Catholic marriage would not be recognised by the state and would not have the benefits conferred by the civil marriage)
At least in my country, the church is forbidden by law to do that.

Why is that? Does the state in your country forbid any other religious groups from carrying out unofficial private wedding ceremonies? What about Muslim wedding ceremonies?

[ 03. February 2016, 20:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SvitlanaV2: Does the state in your country forbid any other religious groups from carrying out unofficial private wedding ceremonies? What about Muslim wedding ceremonies?

This is for all religions. Article 68 of Book 1 of Dutch Civil Law says "No religious ceremonies may take place before the parties have shown to the foreman of the religious service that the marriage has been contracted before a Registrar of Civil Status." Section 449 of the Dutch Criminal Code says "A minister of religion who, prior to having been given evidence by the parties that their marriage has been solemnised by a civil registrar, officiates in any official religious ceremony in celebration of the marriage, shall be liable to a fine of the second category."

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Ah, that's very interesting.

I can imagine some religious groups seeing this as an infringement of their religious freedoms. After all, it's not as if they're asking the state to recognise these marriages or to grant them special favours.

In certain other countries the state would just view the people involved as cohabiting couples - of which there are many across Western Europe, and no one seems to mind all that much.

Out of interest, do you know if there have been many recent prosecutions against individuals who've participated in these illegal ceremonies in the Netherlands, or is it supposed that most of them would pass under the radar?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SvitlanaV2: I can imagine some religious groups seeing this as an infringement of their religious freedoms.

I don't know any concrete cases, but yes this is possible. And I wouldn't entirely disagree with them.

quote:
SvitlanaV2: Out of interest, do you know if there have been many recent prosecutions against individuals who've participated in these illegal ceremonies in the Netherlands, or is it supposed that most of them would pass under the radar?

I had a quick look but I doubt very much that there have been prosecutions. I don't know if there are groups that have organised illegal ceremonies, I guess that most religious groups accept it as a given that couples have their civil marriage first.

There is one exception though, and it is interesting in terms of this thread. Before marriage equality became law in the Netherlands, some churches may have conducted marriage cerimonies of gay couples. At the time these couldn't have a civil marriage so by law, these ceremonies were illegal. I don't know if churches have been fined for this. I'd be interested in finding out.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

(I just found an interesting article in Dutch about informal marriages in Muslim circles, so apparently they do happen. The language of the article is quite legalistic, so it will take me a bit of time to read it.)

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm sorry for hijacking this thread but I just read the article and I find this interesting.

In continental Europe, the prohibition of a religious ceremony without a previous civil marriage is very much the norm. In Belgium, it is even in the Constitution. (For us, the Anglo-Saxon situation is the weird one [Smile]

) This is mostly a heritage that we got from Napoleon. He was very big on registering things, so national marriage registries were set up in the countries he conquered. To have those it was easier to have just one institution that can officiate marriages.

In the Netherlands informal marriages happen, but they are rare. They can mostly be divided into three categories:

There are some ceremonies in alternative groups, especially among Wiccas, where it's difficult to define whether they are marriages or not. People are "tied together" for life or for a shorter fixed period. Are these marriages? Similar ceremonies also happen in Humanist circles.
Elderly Surinam Hindus sometimes enter in religious marriages where neither the couple nor the Hindu minister are very much aware of Dutch culture. Most of them don't know that Article 449 exists.
Cohabitation isn't allowed in Muslim circles. So young couples who want to live together but who are still unsure about marriage enter a Muslim marriage to have their parents off their back.

Once again I'm sorry, but I find this interesting. Especially the last one I find rather funny.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Very interesting, thanks.

I don't know if your last point is funny, exactly. AFAIUI Islam has a longstanding tradition of temporary marriage. I knew a foreign student who tried to get a friend of mine to enter into one with him. It makes Islam a rather liberal religion when compared with Christianity. Or at least one which has a certain degree of authorised openness about such things, whereas Christianity is very murky at best.

The idea of temporary marriage was discussed in Germany a while back, but I think it was rejected with a degree of disgust. You do wonder why, though, when our secularised societies are okay with so many other kinds of domestic arrangement.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Very interesting, thanks.

I don't know if your last point is funny, exactly. AFAIUI Islam has a longstanding tradition of temporary marriage. I knew a foreign student who tried to get a friend of mine to enter into one with him. It makes Islam a rather liberal religion when compared with Christianity. Or at least one which has a certain degree of authorised openness about such things, whereas Christianity is very murky at best.

Did you read the entire link? Whilst contemporary Shi'a use practice as a loophole, it was not created as a liberal policy. More as one to give men licenced nookie whilst on travel.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

I suspect the state ban on religious marriages without a civil marriage first (or concurrent), was to prevent deception. In particular that one or both parties might think they were being legally married when they were not or cases when the couple was trying to deceive a third party (e.g., rich aunt Susan who gave large gifts to nephews and nieces upon marriage).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

In France, Travellers have a longstanding practice of traditional marriage which endures to this day.

Up until the mid-20th century, it was to all intents and purposes impossible for them to marry legally, because the time they could stay in a municipality before being moved on was not long enough for the banns to be properly published.

Interestingly enough, it was a sedentary pentecostal pastor who, at the time of the Gypsy Revival, helped get this state of affairs changed. He clearly believed, as I do, that marriage is first and foremost a civil institution for all-comers, not just people of faith, and has a strong "social recognition" factor.

However, many Travellers still have only a traditional marriage, for the simple reason that it allows them to collect single mother benefits.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Do you mean religious marriage? Because traditional marriage is a meaningless term without describing whose tradition and what time period.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I mean a marriage in line with Traveller traditions that is not a civil, legal arrangement.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Aaah, much appreciated.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Of course I know that the Catholic church will not normally conduct a Catholic marriage unless the couple have already married in a civil ceremony.

(I say normally, for there are odd occasions when the Church will conduct a marriage ceremony without the civil marriage having taken place.
In these instances the Catholic marriage would not be recognised by the state and would not have the benefits conferred by the civil marriage)

Are you sure about that in the UK at least? I know we would be in enormous trouble if we tried that. A marriage is a contract made between between two people before an official celebrant and at least two witnesses. So if they have no civil marriage before, or more usually as part of the religious ceremony, then what you have is a situation where two people have made an oral contract of marriage, but have no written contract. It is a legal minefield.

We have it drummed into us the importance of checking the marriage schedule before conducting the wedding, just in case the couple don't have legal permission to marry, to avoid this very situation.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The only time I knew of this was over 50 years ago in a Central European country . An old couple, one male and one female were living together 'without benefit of clergy'. They were asked if they wished to marry . They did , but they didn't want to lose the pension benefits which came from being two single people as the state pension for a married couple was lower than that for two single people.

The bishop offered them the possibility of marrying simply in God's sight. Only the Good Lord would know that they were married and that might materially affect their place later in Paradise. Even if the world ,at that time, might have thought of them as 'public sinners' the Good Lord would know better..

I doubt if this happens very often and views of marriage and extra-marital sex are quite different 50 years down the line. To make a marriage legal in Scotland, you ,of course ,need to fulfill all the conditions imposed by the state.
To make as marriage canonically acceptable in the Catholic Church you need to fulfill all the conditions imposed by the Church, but in the final analysis the Church cannot be constrained by the State as to whom it offers its sacraments.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The rational method is the state administers marriage and doesn't give a monkey's about whatever else the couple does do long as it violates no law.
Personally, I think that if your God exists, S/He doesn't give a monkey's either. Ceremonies are for people.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Very interesting, thanks.

I don't know if your last point is funny, exactly. AFAIUI Islam has a longstanding tradition of temporary marriage. I knew a foreign student who tried to get a friend of mine to enter into one with him. It makes Islam a rather liberal religion when compared with Christianity. Or at least one which has a certain degree of authorised openness about such things, whereas Christianity is very murky at best.
Did you read the entire link? Whilst contemporary Shi'a use practice as a loophole, it was not created as a liberal policy. More as one to give men licenced nookie whilst on travel.

I did read the link, yes.

The point is, the ruling had one use in the past, and can be adapted to another today. Christianity has no obvious loophole for serial monogamy, except that Jesus believed in 'love'. Yet a degree of serial monogamy is tolerated by many, perhaps most of the world's Christians. However, it seems to be a behaviour without a theology.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Nikah mut'ah hardly makes Islam liberal. It is only conservative practitioners who desire a loophole. Liberal Muslims don't need one.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Maybe so. I don't know to what extent liberal Muslims are inclined to slip out of a religious into a secularised mindset when it comes to sexual matters. My sense is that there's always a sense of needing to justify their actions theologically - but then, my experience is of fairly traditional Muslim communities. The Muslims you mix with are probably more liberal and intellectual.

Christians, particularly Western Christians, are sometimes said to have a historical tendency to compartmentalise their religion. If so, then I suppose 'loophopes' are hardly necessary; it's just a matter of keeping religion in its place.

But with regards to the topic, temporary marriage strikes me as an interesting idea. In a secular culture it could potentially be useful to couples who want to build something together and need to be legally protected and supported, but who don't want to promise to spend an eternity in the same relationship. Civil partnerships could evolve in this direction.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

But with regards to the topic, temporary marriage strikes me as an interesting idea. In a secular culture it could potentially be useful to couples who want to build something together and need to be legally protected and supported, but who don't want to promise to spend an eternity in the same relationship.

Yes, a time-limited "marriage" would be very different from a current marriage or civil partnership. If you go into such an arrangement intending it to be short-term, you need to set out at the start exactly what happens to communal property at the end of the term. You get to be responsible for your children whatever.

Perhaps it's not so different from a marriage with built-in prenup?

quote:
Civil partnerships could evolve in this direction.

I don't think that's an evolution - I think it's a completely different thing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think that's an evolution - I think it's a completely different thing.

This is what I've been discussing with Eutychus. Going this direction, rather than amending the current law to include straight couples, would make more sense. Provided there was enough interest to justify the effort.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

There was at one point a plan in the Channel Island of Guernsey to have "civil unions" as the legal instrument and have the word "marriage" reserved only for religious ceremonies.

Guernsey is that small a jurisdiction that there was some hope this minor revolution would be achievable.

However, in the end they appear to be going for SSM with the ambiguity persisting.

[ 05. February 2016, 06:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The whole point, it was argued, was that it was not "doing the same thing" - above all, in social terms.

I'm not sure what the motivations of the couple in the OP are, but do they not have a point that if an arrangement is dependent on the sex of the two people entering into it, it is discriminatory?

Apologies for the delayed reaction, but yes: in the sense that if they want the right to have some people socially treat them as second-class and "not really married", who are we to prevent them?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I fear your objective answer in the first part of your sentence is drowned out by the part after the colon; pity.

Why can't you dispassionately entertain the idea that some people might actively not want the associations of marriage?

French law makes it notoriously difficult to establish straight/gay proportions, but according to a 2010 figure on this page a whopping 95.5% of those entering into a PACS in France are not of the same sex.

In other words, there has been a massive uptake of the provision - which I understand to be the nearest equivalent to a UK CP - by straight couples.

Do you really think they all merely seeking 'the right to have some people socially treat them as second-class and "not really married"'?

[ 05. February 2016, 11:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I fear your objective answer in the first part of your sentence is drowned out by the part after the colon; pity.

Why can't you dispassionately entertain the idea that some people might actively not want the associations of marriage?

French law makes it notoriously difficult to establish straight/gay proportions, but according to a 2010 figure on this page a whopping 95.5% of those entering into a PACS in France are not of the same sex.

In other words, there has been a massive uptake of the provision - which I understand to be the nearest equivalent to a UK CP - by straight couples.

Do you really think they all merely seeking 'the right to have some people socially treat them as second-class and "not really married"'?

The answer to that is wrapped up in vast questions about what marriage actually means, and I wouldn't assume that the answer in France is the same as the answer here. The histories are very different, including the whole question of whether marriage is a 'civil' or 'religious' thing.

All I can tell you is that for many homosexuals, civil unions is very much seen as a thing that was created for the express purpose of not giving us marriage. For this homosexual legislative drafter, the vast number of complications that were added by creating a whole new category were created for the entire purpose of excluding from an existing category that could have been changed with only a few words.

Maybe in France the creation of PACS was about something different - about supplying a status for people who didn't want marriage. But the perception in many other places is that civil unions were created for people who did want marriage, and was intended as a consolation prize.

It's a really key question: was a new category created for people who didn't want the old category, or to keep people out of the old category?

[ 05. February 2016, 12:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The fact that PACS does not necessarily involve an intimate relationship is also rather crucial. That alone means it will not be seen as simply a marriage substitute. It is suitable for people who would never consider being married and are not in fact 'couples' in the sense we're talking about.

But in that sense, it is not in fact equivalent to the laws in many other places.

[ 05. February 2016, 12:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a really key question: was a new category created for people who didn't want the old category, or to keep people out of the old category?

I suspect that the answer (in the British context) is "Neither: it was the closest thing to what was really wanted that Parliament and public opinion were prepared to support at the time". A fudge, yes - but not (IMO) one arrived at with malicious intent. YMMV.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that PACS does not necessarily involve an intimate relationship is also rather crucial. That alone means it will not be seen as simply a marriage substitute. It is suitable for people who would never consider being married and are not in fact 'couples' in the sense we're talking about.

But in that sense, it is not in fact equivalent to the laws in many other places.

However, the interesting thing is that in Britain intimate relations are not considered to be legally essential to SSM. Gay couples can't divorce on grounds of non-consummation, or of adultery, if it occurs between two partners of the same sex.

So it could be argued that sexual acts and even the absence of such acts are legally irrelevant to SSM. Straight couples don't have an equivalent framework, because the laws around heterosexual marriage still recognise non-consummation and adultery.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a really key question: was a new category created for people who didn't want the old category, or to keep people out of the old category?
I suspect that the answer (in the British context) is "Neither: it was the closest thing to what was really wanted that Parliament and public opinion were prepared to support at the time". A fudge, yes - but not (IMO) one arrived at with malicious intent. YMMV.

You do not describe a 'Neither', you describe the second condition orfeo posits. Whether it was malicious or not is irrelevant to that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, the interesting thing is that in Britain intimate relations are not considered to be legally essential to SSM. Gay couples can't divorce on grounds of non-consummation, or of adultery, if it occurs between two partners of the same sex.

So it could be argued that sexual acts and even the absence of such acts are legally irrelevant to SSM. Straight couples don't have an equivalent framework, because the laws around heterosexual marriage still recognise non-consummation and adultery.

I shall have to access the actual law to see the wording, but from the government's own site describing the conditions for divorce, no one can divorce based upon a partner having sex with someone of the same sex.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I shall have to access the actual law to see the wording, but from the government's own site describing the conditions for divorce, no one can divorce based upon a partner having sex with someone of the same sex.

As was pointed out upthread, "unreasonable behaviour" is grounds for both divorce and dissolution of a civil partnership. So anyone can divorce based on their partner's same-sex extracurricular activities, without the partner channelling Bill Clinton in defense.

(Civil partnerships are certainly aimed at "couples", as evidenced by the fact that they carry the same cosanguinity bars as marriage. Everyone's favourite pair of elderly sisters are unable to contract a civil partnership.

The fact that "sex" is not required is I think more a reflection of nobody really wanting to make a list of acts that would be deemed acceptably sexual from the point of view of consummating a same-sex marriage. Note that consummation is also not required for the marriage of a same-sex couple to be valid.)

[ 05. February 2016, 13:21: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

My understanding is that 'irretrievable breakdown of the marriage' is the catch all phrase for the granting of a divorce certificate in the UK.
This could affect traditional marriages as well as same sex marriages.

As 'ceremonies are for people' the word marriage really refers to a state of being 'married'
The ceremony could also be called a 'wedding'.

While a civil wedding ceremony could simply be a piece of bureaucracy, most couples wish to enhance the bureaucratic form filling with some sort of ceremony which emphasises the 'rite of passage' which the marriage ceremony is.

For many people there are three important events in life - birth,marriage and death. We have little control over birth and death but the marriage state is one of our own choosing and marks a time when our next of kin ceases (in many instances) to be our parents and starts to be our spouse.

If one of the ideas of SSM is equality before the law for homosexuals,then there should be the same equality for heterosexuals to enter a civil partnership,as long as the law permits civil partnerships.

Again as in every instance we have to know what is meant by 'civil partnership'

My son lives in a country where civil partnerships have never been heard of. He wished to return to the UK to marry in a traditional (some might say antiquated) wedding ceremony.
When filling out a form for the registrar, he wrote that his parents were in a 'civil partnership' because they had been in partnership for a long time and were always civil to one another.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Obviously, anyone can get divorced if they want to; we've made that fairly straightforward in our culture. But it seems odd that straight people have recourse to non-consummation and heterosexual adultery as reasons, but gay people don't have recourse to non-consummation and SS adultery.

It could reasonably be argued that if non-consummation and SS adultery aren't legally important in SS unions then there should at least be an option for straight people to enter legal unions for which non-consummation and heterosexual adultery are also legally irrelevant.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Svitlana, it basically comes down to no-one wanting to get into the details of what "consummation" actually involves for a homosexual couple. People don't want to try to define the mechanics of homosexual intercourse.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a really key question: was a new category created for people who didn't want the old category, or to keep people out of the old category?

I agree, and I agree mileage may vary from country to country.

My honest impression was that the PACS was introduced with a view to it being "not quite SSM", with all the potential for stigma you refer to, but it very quickly took on a life of its own, which I suspect a lot of laws in all countries do.

Today, whatever the original intent, to judge by the figures (95.5%!) it seems to scratch a social itch in a way marriage does far less. So I while I can understand where you're coming from in your post-colon phrase (!), I still think you're being unfair.

quote:
The fact that PACS does not necessarily involve an intimate relationship is also rather crucial. That alone means it will not be seen as simply a marriage substitute.

I don't know the figures here, but I suspect the vast majority are marriage substitutes.

What's really fun with this example is the way it has everyone swapping their arguments.

I seem to remember when discussing SSM that you had all sorts of arguments about intimacy (along the lines, as I recall, of "heavy breathing behind the bike shed" in your memorable words) being irrelevant to the essential nature of marriage (which, again as I recall, was all about "companionship"). Now, suddenly, it's terribly important!

French law commits married partners to "living together", that's all. No word about sex or intimacy. The nearest we get is when approaching the thorny topic of childbearing; a non-consummated marriage is grounds for annulment (historically, I suppose, due to the failure to provide an heir), but of course that line of thinking takes us straight back to whether the natural ability for a couple to conceive is a "normative" component of marriage these days. Tricky.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Svitlana,
ISTM, the law should have been rewritten to exclude the mention of gender. And the consumption bit is an antiquated bit of silliness.

Forthview,
"Traditional Marriage" as you appear to use the phrase, is not only insulting, but inaccurate. When two women form a union in a religious ceremony, they are having a traditional marriage.
CP's are marriage, BTW. Just discriminatory ones.*

*In the UK and similar.

[ 05. February 2016, 15:27: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Today, whatever the original intent, to judge by the figures (95.5%!) it seems to scratch a social itch in a way marriage does far less. So I while I can understand where you're coming from in your post-colon phrase (!), I still think you're being unfair.

And if we were discussing French couples, I would accept that. But we're not. In fact we're largely discussing your surprise that the entire world is not France.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I seem to remember when discussing SSM that you had all sorts of arguments about intimacy (along the lines, as I recall, of "heavy breathing behind the bike shed" in your memorable words) being irrelevant to the essential nature of marriage (which, again as I recall, was all about "companionship"). Now, suddenly, it's terribly important!

I am quite sure I would never have suggested that intimacy is irrelevant. What I would have said is that it is not necessary to get married in order to have sex (or to procreate in heterosexual cases).

That marriage is not necessary for sex does not translate to the reverse proposition, that sex is not necessary (or relevant) for marriage.

[ 05. February 2016, 15:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
People don't want to try to define the mechanics of homosexual intercourse.

When they do, they get it wrong anyway. Scissoring. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My honest impression was that the PACS was introduced with a view to it being "not quite SSM", with all the potential for stigma you refer to, but it very quickly took on a life of its own,

See, this is the thing: CP in the UK didn't take on a life of its own, it remained true to its original intent.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Svitlana,
ISTM, the law should have been rewritten to exclude the mention of gender. And the consumption bit is an antiquated bit of silliness.

Forthview,
"Traditional Marriage" as you appear to use the phrase, is not only insulting, but inaccurate. When two women form a union in a religious ceremony, they are having a traditional marriage.
CP's are marriage, BTW. Just discriminatory ones.*

*In the UK and similar.

I don't understand your reference to 'traditional marriage'. I don't think I've used that term in this thread, certainly not in relation to SSM.

What I've done is pointed out that the law pertaining to SSM and to marriage between couples of the opposite sex is indeed different with regards to the legalities of non-consummation in particular, and potentially with regard to adultery, where the parties are of the same sex. Hence, it's not precisely true to say that there's absolutely no difference between the two.

Non-consummation might be an outdated concept, but it still exists. Where I might possibly agree with you is that if we remove both non-consummation and adultery (whether between persons of the same sex or opposite sexes) from the legal concept of marriage then there would be greater equality. It would also separate marriage from the concept of sexual exclusivity (which human beings seem to be highly ambivalent about anyway), and also acknowledge that not all marriages, whether gay or straight, involve sexual activity. Couples could then be encouraged to negotiate their boundaries on a personal level, rather than expecting the legal contract of marriage to do that for them.

In short, I seem to be saying that either marriage or civil partnerships need to be re-invented. Since we're so fond of the word 'marriage' it looks as if it might be simpler to completely re-draw its cultural and legal significance than to go down the French route of creating a PACS style alternative.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: And if we were discussing French couples, I would accept that. But we're not. In fact we're largely discussing your surprise that the entire world is not France.

I know this is a mainly Anglo-Saxon forum, and I feel that it is good sometimes that there are people who can offer a different perspective. In quite a lot of things, you are the exception.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

LILBuddha -I think once again we have to define what is meant by 'tradition' or ''traditional'.
I think that there is a long tradition of marriage being considered as a state of a man and a woman living together,pooling their resources and each complementing the other.

I do not for one minute doubt that for millennia some women have lived together as the equivalent of what people would see as marriage partners. Certainly within Europe, there is no long tradition of two women having gone through the bureaucratic formulas provided by the state to be recognised by the state as a married couple.

It is in that sense that I use the words 'traditional marriage ceremony' The use of the words was most certainly not meant to be insulting.

There is no reason to suppose that one is trying to be insulting by indicating that a marriage ceremony between a man and a woman is a traditional feature of European, if not indeed world society.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Forthview,

Prior to the advent of the struggle for SSM, the term traditional marriage meant a ceremony with the customs of one's cultural group as opposed to a pure civil ceremony.
Including SSM doesn't affect that definition.
It does affect the common recent adaptation to define OSM.
Traditionally one wouldn't use it that manner.

Svitlana, that portion of that comment was directed towards Forthview.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Oops, sorry!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Forthview,

Prior to the advent of the struggle for SSM, the term traditional marriage meant a ceremony with the customs of one's cultural group as opposed to a pure civil ceremony.
Including SSM doesn't affect that definition.
It does affect the common recent adaptation to define OSM.
Traditionally one wouldn't use it that manner.

...whereupon lilbuddha goes and with great ease hides behind spiral staircase, such are the contortions that s/he has performed in order to show that everyone else is mistaken in their understanding of the term 'traditional marriage'....

[ 05. February 2016, 20:39: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Post some examples of the use of the term in that manner prior, then.
You claim twisting, I see it as stripping away the pretense.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

You know damn well that when people, most people, talk about 'traditional marriage' they mean marriage which is, perhaps among other things, between persons of different sexes. That is something which has always and everywhere been a characteristic of marriage in European and European-derived societies(or near as makes no difference always and everywhere in case you are going to tell me that there is some semi-deciphered manuscript somewhere suggesting that there might possibly have been a custom which looked something like SSM in some obscure corner of the Med two or three millennia ago).
Now, that is of course no reason to deny the extension of marriages to same sex couples. And I understand your comment upthread to mean that when two women marry, where such a thing is possible, they mean to subscribe to the traditional values of the married state, or at any rate some of them. If that is what you are saying I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. But traditional marriage it ain't. It's none the worse for that, and it might become traditional, in time, but it's not what people mean by traditional marriage now, and you know it.

[ 06. February 2016, 15:12: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You know damn well

No, I do not know this. I do know that my Gran, and people in her generation,* oft spoke of traditional marriage being with a religious ceremony with all the smells, bells and candle-wax. As in "I wish X would have had a more traditional ceremony" as opposed to a more pared down or purely civil ceremony.
The "tradition" of hetero marriage is the tradition of oppressing SS relationships and LGBT folk in general. Hard to have a marriage if your very existence is taboo.
BTW, a quick web search confirms my case, not the one you make.

*Which I find amusing as well.
Tradition
noun
1. as far as I can remember
2. what makes me comfortable

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I think that a traditional marriage is the one without the blacklights?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that a traditional marriage is the one without the blacklights?

Unless you are of the Goth tradition, in which case they are mandatory.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You know damn well
No, I do not know this. I do know that my Gran, and people in her generation,* oft spoke of traditional marriage being with a religious ceremony with all the smells, bells and candle-wax. As in "I wish X would have had a more traditional ceremony" as opposed to a more pared down or purely civil ceremony.

Ok, you know damn well that when people talk about 'traditional marruiage' in this context...
But there you go again, being twistier than Oliver Twist and Chubby Checker playing Twister while listening to Twisted Sister's greatest hits.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
I do know that my Gran, and people in her generation,* oft spoke of traditional marriage being with a religious ceremony with all the smells, bells and candle-wax.

No, that's a traditional wedding.

[ 07. February 2016, 16:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Good gods, even the fear of dancing. [Disappointed]

Wedding = marriage. Both are terms for the joining of two individual units into one unit.
You couldn't keep marriage for yourself so now you wish to create a seperate catagory of marriage. Fine, just don't pretend that is not what is occurring.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Wedding is the ceremony. Marriage is a term which is sometimes used for the ceremony but which has a wider sense of the institution, as in 'Evelyn and Hilary [see what I did there? Inclusive, eh?] had a 45 year marriage'; 'marriage is for life'; 'marriage is not for life'- none of which could possibly apply primarily to the ceremony. Two women could have a traditional wedding (well, traditional in all respects except that until very recently the parties would always have been of opposite sexes) and they could subscribe to (some or all of) the traditional values and behaviours of marriage. But that's as far as it goes, for the moment. Doesn't necessarily mean that two women can't contract a marriage. Does mean that until such time as SSMs have become well established practice, and perhaps most people have half-forgotten that anyone ever made a fuss about them, SSM is not, in our society, traditional marriage- yet.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You know damn well
No, I do not know this. I do know that my Gran, and people in her generation,* oft spoke of traditional marriage being with a religious ceremony with all the smells, bells and candle-wax. As in "I wish X would have had a more traditional ceremony" as opposed to a more pared down or purely civil ceremony.

Ok, you know damn well that when people talk about 'traditional marruiage' in this context...
But there you go again, being twistier than Oliver Twist and Chubby Checker playing Twister while listening to Twisted Sister's greatest hits.

hosting

This is getting too personal. Please desist or take it to hell.
thanks,
L
DH Host
hosting off

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

It's not worth it. I'll step away.

[ 07. February 2016, 20:49: Message edited by: Albertus ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0