Gay marriages

Yes but it's a headline grabber so he considers it publically to get media time. I'm sure there are other things like Palastine that he's also considering but doing that more quietly.

That was meant to be a smile!

Barrow ��

Surely the PM has to consider the matter, as a bill about it has been propsed by parliament. It his job to do that!

Do we?

Here we go again...

I agree with the original poster.

I didn't mean marriage, Jodi! But, of course, relations between couples have been formalized in some kind of rite long before the advent of Christianity.

nanabug some vicars will marry divorced couples, you just have to shop around. I have friends who were divorced but able to marry in a church, it just might not be your church.
As for the Church marrying gay couples. The Church is an outdated institution and ignoring the wants and needs of believers - whether gay, divorced etc.

Agreed. Lets abolish marriage altogether and just go for everyone settling for Civil Partnerships which are renewable every 5 years.

Or abolished!

Good point, nanapug. It's time the whole system was shaken up.

I am not against gay marriage and if that is what people want that is fine, but it angers me that gay people will be allowed to marry in Church but divorced people are not. Isn't that discrimination? Especially if the divorced person that wants to marry again was cheated on by their partner and did not choose to divorce.

Equality, yoga would presumably mean that heterosexuals could enter into a civil partnership, which would be a slightly different contract to a marriage. You'd still have to sign on the dotted line though. Otherwise what would there be to prevent someone whose friend had just died suddenly claiming that they were partners and can I have a pension please etc.
I think it is a good idea to have 2 levels. One which is a civil partnership open to all, including brothers and sisters or same sex platonic friends who live together in a long term household. This would cover things like pensions and wills but perhaps could be dissolved under different arrangements than a divorce.
The other a "marriage" which is a promise to forsake all others etc. Harder to dissolve.
But sorting out the difference between the two is not a job I would volunteer for.

Someone remarked that with a gay marriage there would be a problem with definition of 'consummation' without which a marriage can easily be annulled.

This could be a good opportunity to get rid of this ridiculous, and vaguely insulting, requirement for heterosexual unions.

Yes, it would be helpful is siblings living together could also have civil partnerships, purely to clarify their legal standing.

I can't help feeling that DC is trying to distract us from something else. Married hetrosexuals, gay couples and living together should all have the same rights.

I wish that heterosexual couples who are not married but living together as "man and wife" were given the same equality as gay couples. My OH and I have been together for 30+ years but not married (both of us were married before and didn't see much point in a legal ceremony). We are not treated as a married couple or even a gay partnership
I understand that it's our choice and we have at least both made wills that secure the other partners future

I find it hard to understand why anyone would want to be married in an institution that harboured people who tell them their sexuality is an 'abomination' - but it takes all sorts!
As far as I can see, the only difference between a civil partnership and a marriage is in the word, but if it is what same-sex couples want I can't see any logical reason why they should be denied it.

I understand that the lawyers are scratching their heads over how to define consumation in a gay marriage so that anulment will be possible. I would love to be a fly on the wall!

Can someone tell me the difference between a gay marriage and a civil partnership? Is it just the church thing? Surely a civil cermony followed by a church blessing would satisfy everyone.

More to the point, what is this government trying to distract us from? The country is falling to pieces around our ears and David Cameron's priority is gay marriage. Oh please, give me strength.

Isn't this more about equality? If two people love each other and want to make a commitment to each other does the fact they are both same sex really make a difference? My only caveat would be that no clergyman should be forced to perform the ceremony if he/she felt it went against their religious beliefs or if the majority of his/her congregation didn't want the weddings performed in their church.

There are many clergymen/women who are happy with the concept of gay weddings.

Those who are against gay marriage sometimes quote the Bible as proof it is against God's teachings, but the Bible was written by men interpreting what they thought were God's teachings and being influenced by the mores of their time.

I think treating all people alike is very important.