Zappykins said:
Perhaps to you, but like voting to Emily Davison, to the people that are effected it’s important. Civil rights are only nothing to you, if you are not effected by the lack of them. Even, not a fan of marriage John Barrowman of Doctor Who/Torchwood, finally got married recently to his (now) husband in California. Plus, what about when you leave the country? Marriage rights in other countries are quite different than ‘domestic partners.’ I honestly can't say exactly what the difference are in the UK, but in the USA a Civil Partnership is missing about 10,000 (total at the federal level) rights from marriage. (like Immigration, taxes, social security, inheritance, etc.) |
Legally there is no difference, that's his point, a Civil Partnership was a marriage as far as many were concerned because by law it is no different. The reason Civil Partnerships were brought in was to highlight the obvious rediculousness that you can be with a person for 15 years and not be their next of kin if you die suddenly. Civil Partnerships gave gay couples the exact same rights as straight couples.
In the terms of this, it's just the term 'marriage'. So a gay couple can say they are married essentially by religion as it was defined in law, this changes that. No law changes other than the term would have changed. I'm all for this but do think it pointless and a waste of time especially as Civil Partnerships exist and we have more pressing issues to deal with.
The only issue now is getting a minister to perform it, many are more comfortable with it but many churches won't do it and it's their right to say no.
Hmm, pie.
