h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>"But it's a case of "separate but equal". If there are going to be civil partnerships *all* marriages should be civil partnerships."

If people actually think two things are different but equal, or different and unequal, changing names isn't likely to change opinions. I'm not sure there's a great analogy with seperate but equal, in the sense of same-sex unions having to take place in different locations, or anything like that. A difference in legal labelling isn't the same as physical separation.

One could legally define all women as men, or everyone as being white, but I'm not sure it would really achieve much in terms of changing attitudes, especially if people in general just called each other whatever they want.

I'd reckon that if the best the churches could come up with was "Well, at least don't legally *call* it marriage!", it's hardly a sign of their power in modern society.

It will be interesting to see how the 26 bishops, 1 rabbi and 0 imams (and 0 Grand Druids ) fare if anyone ever gets around to reforming the House of Lords. Their potential non-inclusion doesn't seem to have been an issue so far.

Correction. 2 rabbis. There's that nice Rabbi Julia - but she's there on merit.

Hi Eddie ,

Now I have time to wander about the internet I have realised I meant the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

The definition of what constitutes 'religious hatred' is pretty ambiguous, to whit:

"In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."

A precedent has been set by the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry, and adopted almost unquestioningly by ACPO and the Courts, that a crime of hate (on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation, and now - religion) has been committed if the person who makes the complaint feels that hatred was involved.

Thus if we here rail against the iniquities of Catholic doctrine it only takes a Catholic to complain that we were disseminating hatred against Catholics because of their religion and we are in technical breach of a law that can land you in prison for up to seven years.

The notorious Danish Cartoons would stand no chance in the face of this law. it is a good thing that Dave Allen has passed on, he wouldn't last ten minutes...

Personally I like George Orwell's take on this whole topic:

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

So if we take the case of Mr.Rushdie again. What is to stop a radical muslim cleric from accusing the publishers of The Satanic Verses of promoting religious hatred because of the portrayal of The Prophet Mohammed and Jesus (also considered a muslim prophet) in that book?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Not all people are women. Not all people are white. All marriages are marriages, though. If something called a "civil partnership" gives the same rights as something called a "marriage", they are essentially equal - and then why draw a distinction? Drawing a distinction encourages further discrimination.

Furthermore, I'm not too familiar with the situation in the UK, but in certain American states where "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are the same-sex equivalent of heterosexual marriages, the different terminology was arrived at as a compromise, between the more fundamentalist, conservative lawmakers/religious types and the more liberal ones. That doesn't mean that the folks like evangelical ministers wanted there to be civil partnerships - if they had their way homo- and bisexuality would probably be criminalised.

But one should never compromise where civil rights are concerned. One doesn't compromise in terms of giving people of colour rights or giving women rights - let's only allow women to own *some* property; let's only let black people sit together with white people in *some* areas... can you see people saying that today? No, because we know from experience that things like segregation based on skin colour do not result in social equality. No experience has shown us that a separate ("marriage" versus "civil partnership"), theoretically equal (same legal benefits) situation actually results in a wholly equal situation.

Apologies for ranting, but this is something I feel very strongly about.

>>"A precedent has been set by the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry, and adopted almost unquestioningly by ACPO and the Courts, that a crime of hate (on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation, and now - religion) has been committed if the person who makes the complaint feels that hatred was involved."

Isn't that more the case when it comes to race, etc as an aggravating factor in a crime? In the case of Stephen Lawrence, the crime was murder, and any racial hatred is only really relevent as an element in sentencing.
Even then, there'd need to be some kind of justification for the belief a crime was racially or otherwise motivated. I doubt it'd be believed for, say, someone mugged by someone of a different race unless they alleged hearing actual racial insults or suchlike. Might be easier with something like an unprovoked assualt with no obvious other motive.

>>"Thus if we here rail against the iniquities of Catholic doctrine it only takes a Catholic to complain that we were disseminating hatred against Catholics because of their religion and we are in technical breach of a law that can land you in prison for up to seven years."

The crime requires an intent to stir up racial or religious hatred, so it'd be up to a prosecution to show that intent existed. It's not down to someone to just choose to take offence and claim there must have been a crime.

>>"So if we take the case of Mr.Rushdie again. What is to stop a radical muslim cleric from accusing the publishers of The Satanic Verses of promoting religious hatred because of the portrayal of The Prophet Mohammed and Jesus (also considered a muslim prophet) in that book?"

Nothing's stopping them accusing, but they'd be wasting their time even if the book was freshly written and published. It seems pretty clear the intent of the boomk was not to cause hatred.
I'd wonder more about Mein Kampf.

I wouldn't panic just yet, Math. The amendments to the Act removed the 'insulting and abusive' test and added a test of deliberate threat - this against government wishes.

While I was as concerned as anyone by its initial wording, I'm now reasonably confident that it's workable. I personally don't think it was *necessary* - the example of Scots case law could have been followed, ie when some people say 'Muslim' we all know they mean 'Muslim Asian', making the offence one of Racial Hatred. But at least now it doesn't exclude Salman Rushdie, Rowan Atkinson or those deliberately shit-stirring Danish cartoons.

In any case, all UK laws have to be interpreted under the supremacy of our old friend The Human Rights Act, which as you know guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of expression. See? Sometimes democracy does work.

EMR - I take your point that we shouldn't compromise on civil rights. The civil partnership/ marriage dichotomy is peculiar and originates in the churches moral hegemony whereby they assume they are the only people in favour of marriage. (Hell, Scots marriages were almost never conducted by churches until about 200 years ago!). But maybe we should be a little more zen in our opposition? If I were getting coupled nowadays, I'd deliberately opt for a civil partnership. Screw 'em!

>>"Drawing a distinction encourages further discrimination."

So people who are anti-gay are made *more* so by the legal use of the term 'civil partnership', or they'd become less discriminatory if the same term was legally used for all two-person unions?

I'm struggling to imagine scenarios where the legal term would be likely to lower discrimination.

>>"But one should never compromise where civil rights are concerned. One doesn't compromise in terms of giving people of colour rights or giving women rights - let's only allow women to own *some* property; let's only let black people sit together with white people in *some* areas..."

Quite. Rights as in what people can or can't do, or what treatment they can expect from the state are important. I fail to see that the right to have the state use a particular term as a label for a contract is really that important a right, if indeed it's a right at all.

Though it seems important to some people in various groups, I can't see how the label really affects discrimination, and even if there was some effect, I doubt it'd be the most important discrimination
Are people more likely to get beaten up on the streets or passed over for promotion because their relationship isn't called marriage?
Are school homophobes really going to hassle someone less because one day they may end up in a same-sex marriage rather than a same-sex civil union?

Like many people I really don't care what the legal title is one way or another, maybe partly as (like most people) it doesn't affect me, and to the extent I care, I'm *way* more bothered about people getting spousal pension benefits, next-of-kin and inheritance rights, divorce security, etc

There's a real risk people can look like activists scrabbling around for something left to complain/campaign about, and I could understand someone thinking "If the biggest problem gay people face is the legal label of their relationship contract, their other problems must be pretty small", and that's not a conclusion I'd like people to draw.

>>"No experience has shown us that a separate ("marriage" versus "civil partnership"), theoretically equal (same legal benefits) situation actually results in a wholly equal situation."

Again, I think your analogy is poor. The 'seperate' in 'seperate but equal' was a physical separation, ("*We* don't want to mix with *them*"), not merely a legal label.

I think all such partnerships should be civil, Edward - a legal union recognised by the government should be distinct from a religious ceremony.

No, this isn't exactly the most pressing issue facing LGBT folks. But it seems to me that if our respective governments (and their electorates) really did favour civil equality, they wouldn't see any reason why same-sex couples couldn't get married in name as well. What would be the reasoning behind creating a new term that isn't "marriage"? It's because folks don't want same-sex couples to get "married".

If you grow up with the concept that opposite-sex couples have *this* type of union and same-sex couples have *that* type of union, isn't that going to make you think they're different? Other than their reproductive bits, these two types of couple aren't really different at all.

But I suppose I should be glad that some places even have civil partnerships.

Elrond, I have to agree with EMR. The lable issue might not be the most pressing one on the table, and certainly legal civil unions are a major step into the present, but different names for the unions can have the effect identifying homosexual life partnerships as somehow not meeting the criteria for a "real" marriage.

On this thread more than most places, I would think that we recognised the significance of the symbolic. The symbolism attached to the legal lable is particularly significant.

It's just a name? I have to disagree. We all know that calling someone a "nigger" is way over the line. But look how the symbolic significance of the lable has mutated over the years. "Coloured", once a delicate replacement for "Negro", has assumed a load of semiotic baggage and is now utterly unacceptable. Even "black" is beginning to lose it's acceptability in the US to the now-preferred "African American".

It's no use suggesting that the people to whom a lable refers are being overly sensitive and insisting that it's just a lable for convenience, after all. The reality is that meaning is contributed not just by the person creating and using the lable, but by those whom the lable identifies. For the lable to have any real meaning, it has to be one that is shared. Therefore, if those in a union that is parallel in every way to a traditional marriage but for the sexual identity of the partners, cannot accept the lable, it's just that we listen to them.

Surely African Americans have the right to reject the lable "Negro" as offensive, or discriminatory, even if we as white people can't grasp the significance. Equally gays are within their rights to reject being referred to as "fags" or anything else that is objectionable. And what is objectionable is what THEY find offensive; that's part of their contribution to creating meaning.

It would seem to follow then, that if those directly affected by being included in a class identified by a lable object to the lable, they have every right to do so, and that right ought to be respected in the legal nomenclature.

The profanity filter allowed "nigger"?

I'm pretty surprised.

Hi Eddie ,

And to those who think that I think I know everything:

"The amendments to the Act removed the 'insulting and abusive' test and added a test of deliberate threat - this against government wishes."

I didn't know that

Good. However, that a secure government feels the need to do this still worries me. I do wonder what is so shaky about these big religions that they feel a need for such protection. I don't and about as far out on the fringe as you get.

As for the HRA [however much we disagree about its core principles] just look at the queue of legislation that is trying to get exemptions...

Hopefully with the Broons in power the age of knee-jerk liberal socialism (aka - caring conservatism) may begin to fade. OK I'm a romantic, but I can dream can't I?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

It allowed "lable" too

Noggin

Hi Elrond ,

I think that you misunderstand me. The outcome of the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry that I was referring to was the creation of the concept of 'Institutional Racism' due to the initial mishandling of the case by the Metropolitan Police. This then led to this further concept of the victim deciding if they had been racially abused or not.

As you say, then proving it is more difficult for the CPS. Let us find an example to work with...

Shall we imagine a Christian protest outside a Winter Solstice celebration at Stonehenge by a druid order?

The lay Christians pray for our souls while a number of Ministers quote scripture in which they threaten us with fire everlasting and call for god's vengeance upon us.

Some even call for a return to OT laws including the killing of pagans, adulterers, gays etc. All based on or quoted directly from scripture.

No-one throws stones or spits, and the half dozen police easily manage the thirty or so Christian protestors.

Then one of the younger teenage druids takes offence at some of the more graphic scriptural readings and feels intimidated and threatened by it. She breaks down in tears and her father complains to the Police.

The Police Superintendent disperses the protestors to calm down the situation and then, reluctantly because the father of the young girl is insistent, arrests a Minister and confiscates a number of placards bearing witty epithets such as 'Burn in Hell' as evidence.

Is this the promotion of religious hatred? Should the Minister be prosecuted? Can he be prosecuted? Or is it a restriction of free speech?

If you are unable to imagine that scene transpose it to a symposium of the British Humanist Association in which they intend to debate abortion or gay rights.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi EMR ,

"I think all such partnerships should be civil, Edward - a legal union recognised by the government should be distinct from a religious ceremony."

All legal unions in the UK, be they hetero or homosexual, are civil and have to be overseen by a civil Registrar. You can get married in the church, temple or place of your choice (though many of those will not host hoosexual ceremonies) and have the Registrar attend to do the legal niceties, or just go for a an entirely secular ceremony at the Registry Office.

What is the situation in the States?

Unlike the States we actually have Anglican Bishops in our upper chamber (The Lords) and a lot of active Christians in Parliament and Government. This makes the issue of gay marriages somewhat sensitive, and thus we have the compromise of civil partnerships.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

I once tried to mention the original title of Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None and found I couldn't. They must have changed the filter again. Like you, EMR, I'm quite surprised.

Just a note to say I'm reading this conversation with great interest.

TRiG.

>>All legal unions in the UK, be they hetero or homosexual, are civil and have to be overseen by a civil Registrar.

Sort of. Ministers of some Christian denominations, CofE, Methodists (I think) - but not Catholics - can register weddings. Interestingly, when we were booking our wedding at a Registry Office, we discovered that if we wanted it on a Saturday, it would have to be in the morning. In the afternoon the Registrar would be busy trooping around various churches.



On The Racial and Religious Hatred Act...it has to be admitted that the amendment scraped through by a vote. Blair had another appointment, and his would have swung it.

Obviously one was right to be concerned - but I don't think that the episode can be portrayed as entirely the result of aggressive religionists wishing to prevent discussion of or 'insult' to their beliefs, nor of "knee-jerk liberal socialis[ts]" pandering to a religious lobby. I'm willing to accept that the Bill was a well-intentioned attempt to address a genuine issue: the exploitation of the Islamophobic bandwagon by racists. The wording of the Bill was entirely wrong, opened the possibility of misuse and might ultimately have been counter-productive. Praise Allah that it was amended!

As for government opposition to the amendment. Well, maybe that was indeed a mis-conceived liberal sop. On the other hand...it was in Labour's manifesto. Manifestos are written in a hurry. It's damn poor politics to try to get manifesto pledges passed unmodified simply because spin doctors are scared of the press shouting "U-Turn!"...but that's more in the sphere of cock-up than conspiracy.

Whatever - once battles are won, Math, it's generally better to stop fighting them. No politician is going to go *near* this area for many years now.

>>"If you grow up with the concept that opposite-sex couples have *this* type of union and same-sex couples have *that* type of union, isn't that going to make you think they're different? Other than their reproductive bits, these two types of couple aren't really different at all."

Surely the greatest differences a child would see is that one couple is mixed sex and the other isn't, and (once they get to an age where they start to experience their own sexuality) for the majority of people of any orientation, one couple fits their idea of what they want or expect for themselves and the other doesn't.
One couple will be 'other' in a fairly obvious way whatever the names are.

>>"but different names for the unions can have the effect identifying homosexual life partnerships as somehow not meeting the criteria for a "real" marriage."

The *legal* criteria seem to be the same.
If someone thinks only a heterosexual couple have the only real (or divinely inspired) connection and that other couples are fundamentally inferior, or maybe even evil, are they likely to change their view if the names are the same?
If someone's seriously homophobic, they still seem likely to say "It's not a *real* marriage" whatever the law calls it, whereas people who don't see much difference are already likely to use 'marriage' as much as 'civil partnership' in general conversation. Five syllables is a bit much for easy usage.

>>"It's just a name? I have to disagree. We all know that calling someone a "nigger" is way over the line. But look how the symbolic significance of the lable has mutated over the years. "Coloured", once a delicate replacement for "Negro", has assumed a load of semiotic baggage and is now utterly unacceptable. Even "black" is beginning to lose it's acceptability in the US to the now-preferred "African American"."

You think if we legally called everyone 'human-coloured' or 'rainbow people', or removed any legal references to skin colour that racism would shrink much as a result?

Surely the baggage each new term acquires comes from some source other than the name. How much of that source truly gets eroded every time the name changes?
If name changing is like a paper towel soaking up a little of a spill, what's the optimum period for name changing? 5 years? 10 years, or just when it's realised the last change didn't work quite as much as hoped?
Bear in mind that the size of the 'spill' does change over time even in the absence of name changes.

People have different skin colour. If people don't see that as an issue or relative superiority, having descriptive words for the colours don't seem to do any harm. If people do see it as an issue, not having legally descriptive words doesn't seem likely to do much good.

Personally, I'd reckon the simplest route would be for people to just keep using the word 'marriage' in the expectation it will get more widely adopted as a shorter alternative to the legal phrase.
Kids don't necessarily grow up judging people on the basis of legal terminology, but on everyday language.