Civil partner? Time to get married.

[sustento]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/samesex-couples-to-be-allowed-to-convert-civil-partnerships-to-marriages-from-december-culture-secretary-says-9566031.html

[Jingthing]

I agree with Mr. Tatchell on this. Straights should be allowed to enter civil partnerships as well as long as they are an option for gays. EQUALITY under the law. Gays and straights deserve the SAME legal/civil rights as our fellow citizens in any country. Special/extra rights and choices are NOT desirable and open up gay people to be targets of resentment. 

Edited June 26, 2014 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

It will be interesting to see how many actually convert or simply maintain their civil partnerships.

[Swiss1960]

I said it before and I will say it again: Governments should get rid of the term "marriage" from their laws and call it "civil unions" or "civil partnerships". Leave the term "marriage" to the religious organisations who are (or should be) independent from the state. "Marriage" is a term that has too many burdens based on the vast number of religious beliefs.

 

This would eliminate all the dicussions about equal rights, as their would be only ONE law for partnerships. This would at the same time give the opportunity to eliminate the today's inequality points in the laws where men and women in "marriage" relationships really don't have full equal rights towards each other. 

 

Call it civil unions, call the people in those union "partners" and give them fully equal rights towards each other and towards all other couples, independant of their sex. That is the only way to go in my opinion

Edited June 27, 2014 by Swiss1960

[Jingthing]

But it certainly is NOT the only way to go. Basically, each and every nation is free to choose their particular way to go. As the cliche goes, there are many ways to skin a chicken. 

[Swiss1960]

But it certainly is NOT the only way to go. Basically, each and every nation is free to choose their particular way to go. As the cliche goes, there are many ways to skin a chicken. 

 

I disagree with you. As long as marriage and divorce laws in a country have any mention of man and woman in it, their will never be an equality between the partners. As long as man and woman are mentioned in a marriage law, same sex couples are excluded from marriage - /sarcasm on/ except when they are forced to state who of them will be man and who will be the woman /sarcasm off/

 

You, JT, who talks so much about equality, should not only see your equality in the possibility to get a "marriage licence" for same sex partners, but also an opportunity to get rid of inequalities between the partners in both marriage and divorce. That, however, is only possible if countries completely overhaul / rework their laws and eliminate any mentioning of the sex of the partners in a union. At that time, they can also get rid of the (religiously burdened) term "marriage". 

[Jingthing]

Oy vey. I live in the real world. Only in a Cloud Cuckooland world is marriage going to go away.  Again, in the case of the OP legal equality can be met by including opposite sex couples in the choose to enter a civil union. 

[Swiss1960]

Oy vey. I live in the real world. Only in a Cloud Cuckooland world is marriage going to go away.  Again, in the case of the OP legal equality can be met by including opposite sex couples in the choose to enter a civil union. 

 

Now that is really BS. Why does a country (any country) need two laws - one for civil unions and one for marriage - when both laws will be "usable" for what ever kind of couples? One of the two laws is then obsolete.

 

And I never said that "marriage" is going away. I said to leave "marriage" to the religious organisations. What help is it for a same sex couple to have a "marriage licence" when that licence is not recognized by (all) churches? 

[Jingthing]

There is no logical reason why marriage must be recognized by all religious bodies to be legit at the SECULAR level. Of course, with theocracies, that's different. Again, each country finds its own way and that's not going to change. 

[onthemoon]

There is no logical reason why marriage must be recognized by all religious bodies to be legit at the SECULAR level. Of course, with theocracies, that's different. Again, each country finds its own way and that's not going to change. 

 

Right, that's why the word "marriage" is irrelevant.

 

We need to fight for equal rights, and international acceptance of civil partnerships/unions, and we need to get the religious term "marriage" out of harm's way.

 

People who want that term can talk to their religious leaders, but that has nothing to do with equal rights.

[sustento]

Might I point out, as the OP, that this is a thread about same sex marriage in England and Wales. It has nothing to do with religion other than the fact that the Church of England is forbidden by law to carry out same sex marriages. Other religions are free to choose whether they do or not. Regardless of whether they do the vicar/priest/whatever is carrying out the duty of a civil registrar at the same time as he conducts the service. 

 

I have been chastised on a regular basis for introducing apparent irrelevancy into the US same sex marriage thread so I left it alone. I'd be grateful if those who wish to discuss the wider religious aspects of marriage do it elsewhere. This thread was just started for informational purposes about the law in England and Wales. 

[Jingthing]

Totally agree. People don't need religion to get married.

[Goldieinkathu]

Fee to be waived for couples converting a civil partnership to a marriage, still no mention for overseas couples.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/07/03/fee-to-be-waived-for-couples-converting-a-civil-partnership-to-a-marriage/

 

[sustento]

I wish I could get biz class upgrades for free.

[Goldieinkathu]

I was surprised to read that couples can only convert to marriage in a register office with a Superintendent Registrar present, which exempts many register offices and all religious venues.

Rather than receiving a marriage certificate, couples will simply receive a slip stating that the conversion ceremony took place.

There's a petition to sign if anyone is interested :

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/07/23/petition-calls-for-change-of-civil-partnership-conversion-regulations/

[Guest]

That is now under review following protests.

[Scott]

I was speaking to a person who is very well informed about visa issues related to Thailand.   It would appear that if you have a valid marriage certificate, your spouse is eligible for the same immigrant status as you have.   If it is a civil union/partnership, it is not considered to be a valid marriage and the union is not treated as such.  

 

It's good news for those who come from a country where you can convert to a marriage.  

[onthemoon]

I was speaking to a person who is very well informed about visa issues related to Thailand.   It would appear that if you have a valid marriage certificate, your spouse is eligible for the same immigrant status as you have.   If it is a civil union/partnership, it is not considered to be a valid marriage and the union is not treated as such.  

 

It's good news for those who come from a country where you can convert to a marriage.  

 

Are you totally sure that the Thai government will accept a same-sex marriage certificate?

[Scott]

It's Thailand.   Very few people can be totally sure of anything.   But that said, if they follow their own rules, regulations and laws, then all that is needed is a marriage certificate.  

 

I have asked one of the visa gurus to try and check this out since there is a fairly strong relationship between some people on the forum and some folks high up in the immigration food chain.