Gay Marriage Vote.

[samurai_sarah]

Guys...I know Elton John had a civil partnership several years back...but can I still hope he's going to throw a BIG FABULOUS WEDDING with his sons as ring bearers and the most awesome tuxes ever made for him and Mr. Furnish? Please, universe, make this happen!

Yes, a country increases its civil liberties and all I can think of are celebrity weddings. Oh well. Seriously, Britain, this is awesome! And it looks like France might head in the same direction sometime this year? One can only hope.

:o I didn't turn out for the Royal Wedding, but I would turn out for that! Please, Elton, make this happen! Technical question: Does this mean that all civil partnerships are now marriages? I'm just vaguely curious about the technicalities, but we'll probably have to see.

I'm hoping that France will go the same way. The Netherlands have been proving for about a decade, give or take now, that civilisation doesn't end thanks to gay marriage. Hopefully, this is just another start for Europe!

[Lostie]

I'm not even a little bit of a royalist (rather the opposite really), but I would absolutely watch that and buy the commemorative stamp collection. :lol:

I want to watch this too! I didn't watch the royal wedding (Bad Canadian :lol: ), but I would be seriously proud to watch that. And buy the DVD. And maybe other commemorative crap too. I might even throw a royal gay wedding party.

[jaynie]

I want to watch this too! I didn't watch the royal wedding (Bad Canadian :lol: ), but I would be seriously proud to watch that. And buy the DVD. And maybe other commemorative crap too. I might even throw a royal gay wedding party.

Hey, I'm British-Canadian and I pointedly ignored all the Will and Kate stuff, so if you're a bad Canadian what does that make me? :lol: (Do you know, people are STILL surprised that I didn't watch the W/K thing? Like, what part of being anti-monarchy and generally uninterested in weddings in the first place made you think I'd be PVRing it?) But I would so be at your royal gay wedding party in spirit. With rainbow cake.

[Esther]

Even despite the Anglican bishops being in the House of Lords, I did read an article earlier today that basically broke things down in terms of political affiliation and voting record and it claimed that most likely, this law should pass in the Lords as well. (I mean, the leaders of all three major parties officially support this, which is awesome.)

The Queen could theoretically refuse royal assent, but she absolutely definitely won't. I think this thing is pretty much in the bag. Which isn't keeping dumb people from making weird claims on Facebook, of course...

[crazyforkate]

:o I didn't turn out for the Royal Wedding, but I would turn out for that! Please, Elton, make this happen! Technical question: Does this mean that all civil partnerships are now marriages? I'm just vaguely curious about the technicalities, but we'll probably have to see.

I'm hoping that France will go the same way. The Netherlands have been proving for about a decade, give or take now, that civilisation doesn't end thanks to gay marriage. Hopefully, this is just another start for Europe!

Umm, the only instances I can think of are certain American states which are of course under a totally different system, but I think most of them required civil partners to actually get married rather than just "upgrading". Personally, I think the ideal system would have room for both options. Unless of course they want to stay in a civil union, which should also be an option.

[Violet]

:o I didn't turn out for the Royal Wedding, but I would turn out for that! Please, Elton, make this happen! Technical question: Does this mean that all civil partnerships are now marriages? I'm just vaguely curious about the technicalities, but we'll probably have to see.

I'm hoping that France will go the same way. The Netherlands have been proving for about a decade, give or take now, that civilisation doesn't end thanks to gay marriage. Hopefully, this is just another start for Europe!

Not sure, I do know they will offer conversion ceremonies (something some friends of mine are already looking forward to!) for those with civil partnerships, so that their marriage will be recognised. :)

France seems a lot more divided than the UK, there were mass counter prostests in Paris from the right-wing parties last month. (I've been following it a bit for as part of my francophone and oral classes) but I hope they go for equal marriage too, especially since it's supposed to be a secular country, so the religious arguments aren't valid.

[constantgardener]

Umm, the only instances I can think of are certain American states which are of course under a totally different system, but I think most of them required civil partners to actually get married rather than just "upgrading". Personally, I think the ideal system would have room for both options. Unless of course they want to stay in a civil union, which should also be an option.

I understood that both options (civil partnership and marriage) will be available for gay couples. For me, this is a little odd as heterosexual couples will only have the marriage option. I think it would be good if everyone could choose the civil partnership route as an alternative to marriage - not a second best, but maybe something completely free from any historical association with religion.

[Violet]

I understood that both options (civil partnership and marriage) will be available for gay couples. For me, this is a little odd as heterosexual couples will only have the marriage option. I think it would be good if everyone could choose the civil partnership route as an alternative to marriage - not a second best, but maybe something completely free from any historical association with religion.

I'm not sure, I thought they were going to "upgrade" civil partnerships to marriages and were just considering the possibility of keeping them to see what public opinion was. The second option you describe is something that I believe happens in France (correct me if I'm wrong) and it's called PACs or something....I have to say I'm not convinced by your suggestion, it kind of feels like "I kind of want to marry you but I'm not sure I want to 100% commit" - many people get married today and don't feel any religious association to it, it's just about making a commitment to spending the rest of their life with the person they love.

[Blahblah]

I've been with Mr Blah for 16 years. We have two kids, a house, two cars, a cat etc together. And guess what? We're not married. I am not a pouffy meringue dress kind of person and hate being the centre of attention. Our commitment would not be greater just because we stood in a room somewhere, said a few words to each other and signed a bit of paper.

BUT (there's always a but) I will argue til cows come home for the rights of anyone who does want a marriage with their significant other and can't just because they have the same chromosome combination. Good on the UK. Hopefully Aus will not be far behind.

[celestial]

Huzzah! Congrats, Britain! :gay-color:

[samurai_sarah]

I'm not sure, I thought they were going to "upgrade" civil partnerships to marriages and were just considering the possibility of keeping them to see what public opinion was. The second option you describe is something that I believe happens in France (correct me if I'm wrong) and it's called PACs or something....I have to say I'm not convinced by your suggestion, it kind of feels like "I kind of want to marry you but I'm not sure I want to 100% commit" - many people get married today and don't feel any religious association to it, it's just about making a commitment to spending the rest of their life with the person they love.

@constantgardener:

Thanks! I was a bit in the dark about that. And I agree, it is odd that civil partnership is not an option for heterosexual couples now.

@ Violet to the bolded: I don't think it's fair to assume that not wanting to marry means that someone is not 100% committed. Personally, I would love the option of civil partnership for heterosexual couples, like the French PACs. My partner of nearly a decade and I are about as committed as you can imagine, but we don't like the idea of getting married. One of the minor reasons being statements like yours. Why does not being married translate to not being fully committed? How does a ceremony make our relationship more meaningful than our private commitment to each other?

Then there's the word "marriage", which comes with all sorts of social expectations. Yes, we could just go down to the registry office, and be unsentimental about it. But family and friends would be extremely miffed if we "cheated" them out of a party. And we both come from large, Catholic families, who are fine with us "living in sin", but a clandestine wedding would create all sorts of drama.

What is more is that for council-tax purposes and receiving benefits, we're considered "married". As long as one of us works and receives a certain amount per month, the other can't receive benefits. I'm currently out of work, and get zilch, because my SO makes enough for both of us. Fair enough as far as I'm concerned, but when it comes to tax breaks, suddenly, we're "single". That's unfair, although I do understand the pragmatic, fiscal ideas behind it. It's still unfair, but we suck it up, because we picked this.

A PAC or civil partnership would give us some legal recognition without all the social, historical and other baggage. It would mean less paperwork for us with regards to medical decisions, property and insurance. As it is, right now, I would be denied access to my partner if he were in ICU, simply because we're not married.

Well, why don't we just get married? I've tried writing down all the reasons, but it's 2am, and my mind is a bit muddled. I'll gladly add them - if so required- as soon as I've slept and have had coffee. My point to you, Violet, is that assuming that you are not 100% committed without a wedding/marriage is a bit much.