to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

Well the whole thing was a bit of a muddle gillybob. Do you remember that they planned to get married in Windsor Castle and then when it was getting near the day, they discovered that if the Castle was given a licence to perform marriages, then they would have to marry hoi polloi there too. Everything was hurriedly rearranged and they were married in the Register Office in Windsor. So who knows?

I have no doubt that the Queen calls the Duke of Edinburgh My Old Man, while he refers to her as She Who Must Be Obeyed.

gillybob yes, it would, what a scandal ! Don't forget 'My Husband and I' from Queenie.

It would be quite funny though wouldn't it ginny?

Do you think the royals ever describe each other as "my husband or my wife" anyway?

Absent, I have just re read your post. So,maybe he isn't legally married if the act said that the royal family could only be married in a religious ceremony ? They still went ahead and did it though so is this another case of certain people being above the law ? Not bothered personally if they are or not.

I don't think the Act was changed and there was a lot of umming and erring at the time. She isn't going to produce another child so it's not an issue (excuse the pun).

Should be: would it matter if he weren't?

Answer, so far as I can see: nope.

Does it matter if he isn't? Shouldn't have thought so.

Riverwalk, I think the legal part of a marriage, be it a religious or civil ceremony is that having met all the conditions, it is witnessed and certified by a registrar. So yes POW is legally married.

So does that mean Prince Charles, future head of the Church of England, is not legally married?

I loved the bonobos as well!

Nelliemoser Some churches won't marry a couple if one of them is divorced and their ex-partner is still living. That was an issue with the Prince of Wales and Camilla Porker-Bowels; the Princess of Wales was dead but the lady's ex-husband was and still is alive. Consequently, they had to have a civil wedding although the act that brought civil weddings into being specifically excluded members of the royal family.

Thanks, Bags, I enjoyed the link. I want to be a bonobo.

Will read later. Am on Fire (in bed) Can't get links. Sex at dawn sounds pretty usual though (from memory)

I think you need to watch Charlotte Uhlenbroek's series "Cousins", jings. I expect you can get them on DVD.

Meanwhile, here's an article called Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan.

Please tell me more about the bonobos!!!

Galen So by that logic, "degrading marriage vows" would surely require a ban on divorced couples from remarrying in church? Or having sex and using contraception.

Thanks, Bags - Galen, I think Bags has said exactly what I was going to say, but she gets up earlier than me!
I don't think marriage was sacred when it was used for political reasons, to unite warring factions or secure succession. Women were rarely consulted, but just used as the property of their husbands. We tend to think that it has always been based on love between the two partners, but that is comparatively recent. No point in looking at it through rose tinted spectacles.
Wasn't Princesse May of Tek cynically passed on to the next in line to the throne when the older brother died?

Sorry for the tautology.

I don't think anything is sacred. And especially not contracts made between two fallible (as we all are) human beings, which is what a marriage is. At the time the contract is made, ideally both partners feel it will/should last forever, but it often doesn't. The reasons it doesn't last are many and multiple.

I think the stumbling block for people who don't like the idea of gay marriage is that they see it as somehow breaking a law that is not human (i.e. a law that was made by a god or gods), whereas really it's a human law/contract. Everything we humans make is open to adaptability and change.

Just because churches say marriage (by which they mean sex) is for procreation, that doesn't mean it is only for that. That is its main evolutionary purpose, but it has been shown that bonobos, to whom we are very closely related, use sex for keeping things calm in their society.

Greatnan

?

[confused{?

But why should allowing gay people to marry make any difference to the behaviour of hetrosexual couples? They can hardly be held responsible for what other people do.

Ah! But it should be! We are seeing the degradation of the marriage vows.
I think that that is the problem.

Young 'uns means anybody younger than me!
I have no objection to hetrosexual couples having civil partnerships, if that is what they want. I have no wish to control what other people do in their own lives, providing it is not harmful to others.
I still do not know what people are afraid of, if a few couples wish to be married in the eyes of the law. Why deny them happiness? I am not concerned with religious ceremonies - that is for the churches to sort out.
We have set out in some detail the way that marriage has changed over the centuries - I see no reason why it should not continue to evolve.
I believe nearly half of hetrosexual marriages end in divorce, so it is hardly being treated as something sacred by many who enter into it.