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

I think in fairness (not that I give a about doing right by the government) the church aspect is little to do with the government and more to do with the religious organisations themselves who do discriminate against same sex couples. Im not saying ALL religions do, just a large majority. I know there are some churches who offer a blessing (Yes, I know its not the same) but the issue of having a religious ceremony should be dropped more firmly on the step of the religions themselves. If they say you can, then theres nowt to stop you and you can sign the 'civil' papers after.

As I said in my original post, for me, its got nothing to do with religion and Im quite happy to keep the religious aspect out of it as I find almost all religions rahter hypocritical. Myself and my partner will be having a pagan ceremony too but that will be a small thing with no legal palavar at all.

Personally I couldn't give a chipmunk's toenail whether religions accept gay civil partnerships or not. It would be like Freud being concerned he hadn't been given an invite to appear on Tricia.

This probably comes as no surprise.

>>>>Personally I couldn't give a chipmunk's toenail whether religions accept gay civil partnerships or not. It would be like Freud being concerned he hadn't been given an invite to appear on Tricia.

This probably comes as no surprise. <<<<

lmao, that really tickled me! Thank you!

Hmm, surely if 'marraige' is there a a joining together of two people to raise a family then infertile people should be excluded and those couples who do not have a family should have their marriage annuled and lose all the legal rights that go with it

Hi BEG,

"I think in fairness (not that I give a bleep about doing right by the government) the church aspect is little to do with the government and more to do with the religious organisations themselves who do discriminate against same sex couples."

Individual priests and denominations can make their own decisions about whether or not to bless same-sex couples. But when the government actually says that you can only combine the legal and religious aspects of your lifelong partnership if you are straight, it reeks of disrespect, and is hard to see as anything other than an attempt to mollify more homophobic religions by validating their beliefs alone.

Plenty of gay people are religious, and there are minsters and denominations which will bless and value their relationships. So why can't the government accept their beliefs on an equal footing?

Hello Roymondo,

"Personally I couldn't give a chipmunk's toenail whether religions accept gay civil partnerships or not. It would be like Freud being concerned he hadn't been given an invite to appear on Tricia."

But it has nothing to do with religions accepting civil partnerships; it's to do with the government giving special privileges to religious straight couples which it won't give to religious gay couples. Given that gay unions can be—and are—blessed and sanctified in a religious context, why does the government only recognise the religious union of a *straight* couple?

This is not about religious discrimination—it's about *legal* discrimination against religious gay couples and gay-friendly religions.

>>Plenty of gay people are religious, and there are minsters and denominations which will bless and value their relationships. So why can't the government accept their beliefs on an equal footing<<

I'm not sure this is a case of the government disrespecting beliefs. Although officially we're still a Protestant country (the PM and his/her Cabinet rule in the stead of the monarch, the monarch is officially defender of Anglicanism) in practice the government tends to operate secularly, leaving issues of religion and faith well alone as much as it can when it comes to law-making.

My understanding is the government didn't want to start a fight they would ultimately lose, and many think they have no business fighting in the first place. They couldn't order religions to hold same-sex marriages, because most would object because it went strongly against their beliefs. That's the basic truth - most religious leaders are strongly opposed to gay marriage, they consider a religious homosexual to be a contradiction in terms. Sad but true. If the government would have tried to force the issue they'd have had mass acts of civil disobedience, it would have been an unwinnable situation. They have instead left it down to individuals to choose, if a certain priest or Father or Reverand wants to give a blessing, it's up to their conscience.

The government did the best it could do, give gay people full legal rights and a procedure almost identical to a secular marriage, with all the same rules - no religious iconography or music. Straight people can't have 'Angels' played in a registry office ceremony either.

Interestingly, the situation for gay men and women is quite similar to the situtation for most non-Christians in this country. There are very few synagogues, mosques, temples or gurdwharas that are registered for religious marriages and so most Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs must perform their religious/cultural ceremonies and then have a registry office marriage to make it legally binding.

Hi Iago,

Thank you for a clear and measured explanation of why it turned out this way, and I understand why. But I think this does show clearly that straight couples have one right which gay couples lack, by virtue of their unions not being recognised as "marriage".


"My understanding is the government didn't want to start a fight they would ultimately lose, and many think they have no business fighting in the first place. They couldn't order religions to hold same-sex marriages, because most would object because it went strongly against their beliefs."

It would be appalling for the government to force churches to go against their core beliefs in this respect. But that's not the problem; it's that the government only recognises a religious commitment made by a straight couple, and not by a gay couple in a gay-friendly church.


"That's the basic truth - most religious leaders are strongly opposed to gay marriage, they consider a religious homosexual to be a contradiction in terms. Sad but true."

At our university, Chris "Lovely" Boden—who was president of Christian Focus for a while—ran some "gay" Bible study classes in conjunction with Warwick Pride, which I gather were quite well-received and enjoyed. Our chaplains are very friendly to gay students; in fact, one has a gay son, who once mentioned that his father was "rather too comfortable" with his sexuality! And just this year, Focus hosted a speaker, an ex-Anglican minister, who left to move in with his partner.

What I think this goes to show is that attitudes (in Christianity, at least) are evolving, and on the whole becoming more positive towards gay individuals. There are already churches and ministers who will bless gay unions, and in future there will likely be many more—not through compulsion, but by their own accord. The upshot of this is that in a very short time, we will have a situation where the government only honours the religious commitments of straight couples and not gay couples, even when churches will voluntarily honour both.


"The government did the best it could do, give gay people full legal rights and a procedure almost identical to a secular marriage, with all the same rules - no religious iconography or music. Straight people can't have 'Angels' played in a registry office ceremony either."

But a religious straight couple *can* choose to be married in a registered church, if they wish. It's having the option when it's available which is important, especially to religious gay individuals.

"Interestingly, the situation for gay men and women is quite similar to the situtation for most non-Christians in this country. There are very few synagogues, mosques, temples or gurdwharas that are registered for religious marriages and so most Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs must perform their religious/cultural ceremonies and then have a registry office marriage to make it legally binding."

To that, I would add Latter-Day Saints; a "Temple" marriage ceremony is hidden from the public view, and therefore is not recognised as legally-binding. However, having attended the marriage of LDS hootooers Dr. Anthea and Khamsin just over a year ago, there was an additional (public) ceremony held in the chapel beforehand, wherein they signed the necessary legal documents as an incidental part of the ceremony.

The difference with gay couples and the other religious groups mentioned above is that none of them are explicitly prohibited from combining their spiritual marriage with their legal marriage, if they could find a registered venue, whereas all gay couples are. It may be discrimination on a technicality, but it is still discrimination.

>>Although officially we're still a Protestant country

actualy the Anglican church is a Catholic church, not protestant, so England is a Catholic country. Scotland is Presbyterian/Calvinist and therefore Protestant and wales is secular, having no established church

>>it's that the government only recognises a religious commitment made by a straight couple<<

Well, I don't think the government recognises any religious commitment at all - that's not what our government is about. Even with heterosexual religious marriages, the government only concerns itself with the legal issues.

Plus, surely the arbiters of religious commitment are God him/her/itself and the two people who make the commitment to each other and to God. I'm sorry if I'm missing something vital here, I mean no disrespect at all, but for me the government only has a purely practical role in marriage - ensuring basic legal rights and procedures, and my signing the register is me entering into an agreement with the government. The important stuff, the love, the commitment to my partner (and God if I was religious), all that lot, has got nothing to do with the government.

I guess my point is I don't see the problem with people who are lucky enough to find an enlightened religious figure, simply getting the legal stuff done elsewhere, so long as they can make the important promises to their partner and God in the right place.

I think it might even be possible for priests etc to become registrars and perform a civil ceremony on religious grounds, so long as there is no overt religious iconography. I think it's simply a case of signing the register in a separate room, with the registrar confirming it. Not certain on that though.


>>The difference with gay couples and the other religious groups mentioned above is that none of them are explicitly prohibited from combining their spiritual marriage with their legal marriage<<

But to all intents and purposes, most people from those religions would be unable to combine the two. To use an extreme example, a Muslim couple living in Penzance would have to go Bristol or Cardiff to combine the religious and legal aspects of their marriage. Until relatively recently, it would have been London or Birmingham. Even major urban areas don't have many venues - Manchester, with the second largest Jewish population in the UK, and a huge Muslim population, only has a handful of synagogues and mosques that are licensed to perform a legal marriage.

While they aren't being actively prohibited from combining their ceremonies, they are being massively discriminated against, jst like gay men and women.

Well, according to the Civil Partnership Act itself (clause 6, "Place of registration" for England and Wales):

'1) The place at which two people may register as civil partners of each other-

(a) must be in England or Wales,
(b) must not be in religious premises, and
(c) must be specified in the notices, or notice, of proposed civil partnership required by this Chapter.

(2) "Religious premises" means premises which-

(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes. '

A slightly differently worded passage but with the same restriction on religious venues is also in the Scottish section of the Act, but interestingly the Northern Irish form doesn't mention that religious premises cannot be used; rather that a local registration authority may "approve places where civil partnerships may be registered in its district". (Whether this restricts CPs from being held at religious venues is unclear, but I suspect it still might do that.)

Therefore, it looks like religious gay people have to resort to what many non-Christian straight couples have to do: hold a religious service separately to a civil ceremony legalising the union. However, I suspect that if there is a significant positive change in many religions' stance on gay couples, there would be more justification for the Government changing the law to allow gay couples to hold their CP ceremonies in churches and the like - I doubt that would happen any time soon, though.

I have no idea how to quote the message, or part of the message, I am referring to so I shall just say it's in reply to post 56.

In that post you mention the differences between CP and marriage and for me there are a few important and sgnificant differences.

Firstly, the religious aspect is relevent but not to me as I am non religious.

More relevent to me and more significant is the other difference which the Government website highlights and that is the fact that all you do is sign a piece of paper to enter into a CP but marriage is all about making public vows. This underlines to me that a CP is just a legal document and nothing more whereas marriage is far more than that. Marriage is a social right of passage to join one man and woman in marriage but a CP is nothing more than a glorified will. After all, partnerships is what business people enter into.

Finally, it seems rather odd that CP is not on opiton for mixed sex couples like it is in other parts of the world (New Zealdn, for example, offers Holy Matrimony, civl marriage and civil partnerships for mxied sex couples but just a civil partnership for same sex couples). Clearly our relationships will always been seen as inferior as a point of principle because if they were not then they'd be worthy of more than a legal document. However, heterosexuals don't seem to want to marry but would probably be happy with the option of a legal document if it was available to them. I had been expecting the Law Commission to suggest opening up CPs for mixed sex couples and I do think this is something which will become available for heterosexuals in the not too distant future.

Reply to post 60 about sexual fidelity:

I think your point about physical commitment having nothing to do with a CP is a good one as it underlines that homosexuals are seen as unable to be physically monogomous full stop and that ahving sex with every moving object is not seen as grounds to dissolve a CP. It panders to the hetero perception of homosexuals, esp homsexual men.

I think you put it very well that they see CPs as a pretend/training marriage but not ready/worthy to be allowed to marry. If you like a CPO could be seen as a pretend marriage.

OK ... here's me wading in.

1. The religious aspect isn't to me either, but it is significant for a number of gay men and women.

2. The public vows for civil (straight) marriage are not fixed in stone ... for a while now it has been possible for straight couples to choose more or less exactly how they word their own vows of committment. As for CP ceremonies, while you don't *have* to say any vows, you can (and choose your own, of course) ... just because the vows are optional doesn't necessarily mean a CP is any less valid than a civil marriage in terms of cementing a relationship.

3. Civil Partnerships here in the UK were devised specifically for gay couples as a way of giving them the equivalent rights in law (property rights, tax exemptions, pension benefits, next-of-kin, parental responsibility for children of the other partner etc.) as a civil marriage but specifically put together to fit the needs of LGBT people. In essence, it is full gay marriage in all but name - the UK Government possibly feared a conservative backlash if they called it marriage or tried to extend civil marriages to gay couples. Because of that, I don't think CPs should be extended to straight couples at the moment ... if the Government decided to refer to CPs as marriages (without any prefix to denote sexual orientation), then perhaps the distinction in law should either be gotten rid of and CPs become civil marriages *or* CPs could be changed to formalise e.g. polyamorous relationships (as they do in the Netherlands, for instance).

For the moment though, while the world catches up with us, I think that CPs are a good way to go ... it's certainly a huge improvement on before when there was a distinct lack of rights for long-term co-habiting gay couples and no option at all to get those relationships formally recognised (unlike straight couples).

As for sexual fidelity ... well, it is true that a number of gay couples decide not to be completely monogamous, but you could say exactly the same for a smaller but still significant number of straight couples. The fact there is no option for dissolving CPs on the basis of sexual infidelity is not necessarily pandering to the straight stereotype of gay men having sex with anything that moves, but rather a legal recognition that loving relationships can be open as well as closed - in which case, I would argue that infidelity should also be removed from the causes of (straight) divorce in the interests of equality. However, there is still the cause of "unreasonable behaviour" ... in the case of a monogamous gay (or straight) relationship, that *could* include infidelity as you wouldn't expect your partner to sleep with someone else!

However there are couples for which having sex with someone else IS significant and would result in the break-up of a relationship and the afct that this is not even recognised in any way underlines my point, saying that homosexual men are not seen as able to be monogomous as heterosexuals would see having sex with anything that mvoes as "reasonable behaviour" because that is that they think every single one of us does.

You are right that some heterosexual coupels are not monogomous. That is their right if that's what they want to do. However, it is udnerstood that for many having sex with sonmeone else IS serious and is grounds for divorce.

To me it just underlines my point that heterosexual see us as incapable of being faithful and that DOES pander to one of the stereotypes.

Thank you for wading in Mikeo.

You are right that you can sue your own words to get married and that's good as the traditional vows are rather archaeic and inappropriate for the modern world. However the fact that making a verbal declaration in front of others is the point and I am sure that many see it as a vitally important and significant part. The fact this is not needed to enter into a CP does make it clear that a CP is just a legal document whereas marriage is a social ceremony as a marriage is not legal unless verbal vows are made regardless of what you may sign.

You are right about the Government refusing to alloow us to amrry as it would never have become law if they had called it marriage as society clearly thinks us incapable of being able to marry and therefor sees our relationships as inferior. However if CP is supposed to be the equivalent of civil mariage then calling ti something else, - ie by making sure it si NOT marriage makes it different and not equal, which is what it is suppsoed to be in law, isn't it.

I am interested that you think it "fits the needs of LBGT." This goes back to the point about sexual fidelity. Do you think that by making having sex with someone else "fits the needs" of the LBGT community ebcuase gay men are incapable of monogmy?

Why do you think that heterosexual couples should not be allowed to enter into a legal arrangement - ie a CP - with their other half?

I don't necessarily agree with you about that ... if a monogamous gay couple were to dissolve their CP on the basis that one of them had cheated on the other, you would argue that since the relationship was formed on the basis that they were going to be faithful to each other, the partner who had cheated would therefore have acted unreasonably. The only problem - compared to a heterosexual civil marriage - would be establishing in court that the relationship was supposed to be monogamous, but since both partners' views on it would be heard, it could be decided quite easily whether the relationship was intended to be open or not.

As for pandering to a stereotype ... I don't believe that straight people in general believe that many gay men cannot commit to a single partner. First of all, a recent survey has found that about half of all gay men (and a slightly higher proportion of lesbians) are in steady relationships ... I don't think the actual proportion of straight people in steady relationships is much higher, given that fewer of them have been marrying over the past few decades and many more settle down at a later stage in their lives.

Secondly, it would be considered very foolish of a government to create a law or an aspect of it on the basis of a stereotype - it can be safe to assume that it has carried out detailed studies and surveys to work out whether or not infidelity should be counted as a direct reason for dissolving a CP. (It is possible that the government consulted gay men and women in long-term relationships to ask that question and that the law reflects their views.)

Finally, while the hedonistic "gay scene" is a stereotype that is seen in the media from time to time, I am quite sure that most straight people recognise that it is indeed a stereotype and that a significant proportion of gay men can be in monogamous and loving relationships. (I wouldn't have thought most straight people are that stupid to totally believe what they see on TV!)

It depends how you define "steady relationship." You can be in a steady relationship but not be monogomous, as I know is the case for a couple I know who are in a CP and have been togetehr for a decade. I have not come across a partnership stronger than theirs but they are not monogomous. In other words they are totally committed to each other but enjoy sex with other people and it works for them just fine. However if they were supposed to be and one cheated then as it is not a reason to dissolve a CP then it wouldn't matter because the CP cannot be dissolved because, as I say, heterosexuals seem to believe that homosexual men are incapable of being monogomous, and this is reinforced by the stereotype and how we are seen in the wider world. If they had thought that we were capable of being faithful then playing away would be grounds for a dissolution as it is for a divorce so yes this is based purely on the stereotype.

If a gay relationship is supposed to be monogamous, having one partner cheat on the other *would* be grounds to dissolve the relationship - under the umbrella of "unreasonable behaviour". The point I'm making is that the idea of automatically dissolving a marriage or a CP on the grounds of infidelity is deeply flawed, given that significant numbers of *both* gay and straight couples do agree to open relationships. (It's certainly not a recent idea - e.g. a classical composer that I admire, Shostakovich, was in an open marriage with his first wife from the early 1930s to the mid-1950s.) I would therefore argue that not including infidelity as grounds for automatic dissolution of a Civil Partnership is actually a good idea - whether or not a relationship is supposed to be monogamous should be covered by the courts on a case-by-case basis.

You could argue that rather than society as a whole holding an inaccurate stereotype about gay men being unable to commit in closed relationships, it actually incorrectly assumes that straight couples who marry will automatically be monogamous. I'm certainly not denying that some gay couples do "play away" from time to time - and I remember reading that many longer-established gay couples were/are deliberately non-monogamous to show their rejection of "heterosexual"-type relationships - but there's a whole world of difference between having that as a stereotype and a government accepting this as a reality.