Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Homophobic BBC Scotland Online.

Page: (1)2 3

07:33 / 05.12.05

Story here.

I'm not willing to let people get away with calling civil partnerships equality, they're just not. This nonsense makes me so angry because equality is not, in my opinion, something we should compromise on and it's SO New Labour to do so.

08:10 / 05.12.05

Umm - which is the bit you find homophobic, cause I'm having trouble seeming what you find so egregious. Are you just identifying any attempt to claim that civil partnerships as granting homosexual couples equal legal status as married couples as somehow being homophobic?

09:02 / 05.12.05

it would seem that the only difference is that same sex couples will not have the option to call their uinion marriage, nor to have the service take place in church.
the former seems a lot less important than the rights under law, and the latter seems to me to be up to the church.

despite the differences for hetero and homosexual couples, i think that the article called this new development equality seems tenable as it will mean equal rights regarding inheritance, etc.

havei missed your point, nobody's girl?

09:10 / 05.12.05

Nobody's Girl, ever heard the phrase don't shoot the messenger?

09:13 / 05.12.05

i am a little surprised that this is the first thread about the change, incidentally. i read the same article and several others like it.
it made me happy that the law has finally stopped being quite such an ignorant ass when it comes to the rights of same sex couples. i was sort of expecting a thread celebrating that, rather than one condemning the BBC.

its a shame it has taken so long, but i am glad that it finally has.

09:54 / 05.12.05

just identifying any attempt to claim that civil partnerships as granting homosexual couples equal legal status as married couples as somehow being homophobic?

It's not JUST, it's the whole fecking point. Civil partnerships are NOT the legalisation of marriage for homosexuals, they're "Marriage" for homosexuals. Because homosexuals can't really get married 'cos their relationships aren't real relationships like heterosexual relationships. Apparently.

It's segregation, not integration and I find it offensive that the BBC are pandering to the discrimination by calling it equality.

10:01 / 05.12.05

what change do you feel they should make to the law? call it marriage? allow it in church? something else?

Hattie's Kitchen

10:05 / 05.12.05

Um, well, speaking as a homosexual who has no wish to enter a "marriage", nor have any future partnership union recognised in church, I have to say that I can't see what the problem is...I welcome this change in the law because had I been heterosexual and wanting to have my partnership recognised, I would have chosen a civil partnership along this structure, guaranteeing me and my partner equality (property, etc) UNDER THE LAW. Which I think is what this article is emphasising. I can't see how it's homophobic, sorry.

10:05 / 05.12.05

I think the law shouldn't forbid homsexuals to marry in exactly the same fashion as heterosexuals, otherwise it's simply not equality. Honestly, I'm rather surprised I have to explain this on Barbelith. Clearly missing the queer contingent today.

10:07 / 05.12.05

Hattie, you may not wish to be married, that's fine, but true equality in law should not forbid you from doing anything a heterosexual can. We are discussing state marriage, not church marriage.

pointless & uncalled for

10:09 / 05.12.05

So how do you feel about those same-sex couples that are embracing this as equality?

10:11 / 05.12.05

I think it's sad.

Hattie's Kitchen

10:12 / 05.12.05

equality in law should not forbid you from doing anything a heterosexual can

As of today, I DO have equality on the things that would matter to me in any future partnership, hetero or homo - inheritance, tax, property etc...

10:13 / 05.12.05

i would like you to explain what you see as the differences that matter, if that's okay.

i understand that any differences are bad, in that they place the relationship in a different box. what practical difference do you feel that makes?

10:14 / 05.12.05

I suspect there's an element of "Well, this is the closest to marriage we're gonna get, lets take it." Also a few people like Hattie who don't quite get that this is still discrimination. Having said this, if I were in a long-term homosexual relationship I would probably consider a civil partnership if only for the increase in legal recognition, difference is I wouldn't call it equality and I would continue to campaign for full rights.

Hattie's Kitchen

10:17 / 05.12.05

NG, what you don't seem to get is that there are a fair few people like myself who balk at the idea of "marriage" constructed along heteronormative lines.

Are you married?

10:19 / 05.12.05

Yes, Hattie, but you DON'T get to call it a marriage. You get to call it a "Marriage", doesn't that piss you off? It's like the state is sneering about what it considers to be your psuedo relationship.

10:21 / 05.12.05

i agree with the girl that one should have the right to turn down marriage as much as any straight couople should.

i would never join the army, but i feel that everyone should have the right to do that too.

10:23 / 05.12.05

I'm well aware of the people uncomfortable with traditional marriage, I share the feeling, but thats not really the point, is it? The way the state recognises a relationship has nothing to do with how it's run- does it?

Hattie's Kitchen

10:26 / 05.12.05

Personally speaking, no. I've never wanted to be married in the commonly-accepted sense, and would not want my union to be known as a marriage. So no, for that very insular and navel-gazing reason, it doesn't piss me off.

But I would want any future partnership of mine to be recognised legally and for my partner to have the same civil and legal rights as a heterosexual partner. So for me, this law is welcome. It may not constitute full equality for you but it's equality for me - as I said, had I been hetero, I would have gone for a civil partnership along the same lines.

And it will be a hell of a lot easier to campaign for "full marriage", whatever that means, with this in place. I know it's taken far too long, but it's here now, and I think that's something to celebrate.

10:28 / 05.12.05

I suspect there's an element of "Well, this is the closest to marriage we're gonna get, lets take it."

see, i assumed there was more of an element of "well, this isnt marriage, but it s a hell of a lot closer than we have ever been", and that the couples who began their relationships at a time when homosexuality was illegal might be grabbing this as a step forward that has been too long coming.

i agree that there is still more that could be done. i disagree with you that this will be likely to stop folks doing that.

10:36 / 05.12.05

Hattie, it may be what you want and I'm glad for you, but until you are able to do all that heterosexual couples can in law you are still discriminated against. This recent law could be a step on the way, or it could be the end of the road as people like you enter a comfort zone and lose the will to fight for full rights.

pointless & uncalled for

10:41 / 05.12.05

I'm at a bit of a loss on this one. What, in exact and tangible terms, is the difference between a marriage and a civil union?

Hattie's Kitchen

10:47 / 05.12.05

This recent law could be a step on the way, or it could be the end of the road as people like you enter a comfort zone and lose the will to fight for full rights.

Fair enough point - I don't think you're going to see a stampede of gays clamouring to get married in the Catholic church for example.

But, as with the age of consent laws, once the foundations are in place, it is much easier and quicker to attain equality under the law if you have some form of legal recognition in the first place.

Bear in mind that Britain is one of a tiny handful of nations in the world that has granted gay couples legal recognition in this way. I'm not saying we should settle for this, and yes, I will continue to campaign for "full" rights, but considering the hullaballoo over gay unions in the US for example, we are well on the way to gaining full rights. Again, I welcome this.

10:48 / 05.12.05

I can definitely see the case for arguing that civil partnerships are not called marriage and thus might be considered inferior in the eyes of some. I can even see that stating it unproblematically as giving equality to same sex couples (as opposed to a move towards equality), but to call claims that this legislation gives same-sex and mixed sex couples equality homophobic stikes me as overstating the case somewhat.

Outside of this I would like to ask what exactly is granted by a civil marriage that is not given by a civil partnership?

Lastly, as an aside, is there anything in the civil partnership act to preclude hetrocouplers? Is there the chance that Marriage might die out in favour of civil partnerships for all?

10:59 / 05.12.05

I’ve got some sympathy for Nobody Girl’s dissatisfaction. Civil Partnerships do seem to be a version of marriage, rather than marriage itself. But I find myself in a difficult position on this one, because I feel a bit like Hattie’s Kitchen in that I don’t personally want to have anything to do with the parts of marriage beyond the legal provisions that Civil Partnership now offer (although as someone in a m/f relationship, we can’t have a Civil Partnership – we’re only allowed marriage, not “Marriage”).
I suppose one way of approaching whether this represents equality would be to ask whether heterosexual couples would feel they’d lost anything if “Marriage” was the only option for anyone.

I feel a bit ignorant about this though. What are the differences between being married and being in a civil partnership, exactly. In what sense does CP not replace marriage?

11:05 / 05.12.05

Member of the queer contingent here.

I take your point, Nobody's Girl. Civil partnerships constitute equality in legal terms but are not truly equal because the Church has not been compelled to recognise them, and they're not officially called 'marriage'. I can see that some especially religious or assimilationist gay people might conceivably feel as strongly about this as do you.

Not me, though, and, I suspect, not the vast majority of gay people. I don't think this is just because relatively few of us are sufficiently religious for the church setting to matter, but also because there's a very real ambivalence around the idea of getting married just like heterosexuals do. I agree that it would be nice to have the option, but I'll be surprised if there's a vast body of gay people interested in fighting for it.

One could put this down to internalised homophobia, of course - and there may well be some who feel they're somehow not good enough for a full meringue, show-the-world, happiest-day-of-my-life church wedding. For most of us, however, I think it's more that we're not tacky enough. Life is, frankly, too short.

11:06 / 05.12.05

Sleaze - according to the Guardian, hets cannot register a civil partnership:

FAQ Civil partnerships

Who can register a civil partnership?

Civil partnerships can be registered by two people of the same sex who are not closely related to each other. It is designed for gay couples, but longstanding heterosexual friends of the same sex could also register if, for instance, they wanted to pass on assets to each other free of inheritance tax.

What about unmarried opposite-sex couples?

They cannot register their partnership; if they want rights equal to those of married couples their only option is to marry.

What rights do civil partners have?

They can inherit from each other without a will, benefit from each other's national insurance contributions, are exempt from inheritance tax, are treated as married for immigration purposes, have the right to financial support from each other and can make financial claims on each other if the partnership is dissolved.

lord henry strikes back

11:06 / 05.12.05

Sleazenation - I have yet to read to whole act but as far as I am aware, yes, hetro couples are excluded from having a civil partnership.

And that pisses me off. As a hetrosexual atheist I find the religious foundation of 'marriage' offensive. I would, however, like for my partner and I to have the same legal rights as a married couple and would deffinately consider a civil partnership. Am I being discriminated against on the grounds that a civil partnership is not open to me simply because I'm hetro?

11:12 / 05.12.05

As for specific differences, a hetero marriage is 'activated' by the act of speaking the vows, a civil partnership by signing the register. Technically, I think there's also no provision within a civil partnership for dissolving the union if it is not consummated - which means there'd be nothing stopping same-sex platonic friends from getting 'civil-partnershipped'.

Which linguistic tangent is probably another reason I'm not too bothered by this being like-marriage-but-not-marriage: it's already being referred to as marriage, and I suspect it'll be thought of by most simply as 'gay marriage'. Which, to be honest, annoys me more; I don't particularly want heterosexual people assuming my relationship is exactly the same as theirs. I like the fact that it's essentially a secular legal contract with no cumbersome religious baggage.

11:13 / 05.12.05

Lastly, as an aside, is there anything in the civil partnership act to preclude hetrocouplers?

No, but they'd have to 'civilly-partner' a heterocoupler of the same sex.

11:15 / 05.12.05

Am I being discriminated against on the grounds that a civil partnership is not open to me simply because I'm hetro?

Can't you simply get married in a register office, making up your own vows and eschewing the big white wedding crap?

11:20 / 05.12.05

This recent law could be a step on the way, or it could be the end of the road as people like you enter a comfort zone and lose the will to fight for full rights.

In which case, presumably it's a comfort zone precisely because 'people like us' are insufficiently religious/assimilationist/concerned about (or actively opposed to) the principle of the thing to get tremendously worried about not being able to say, "we're married" in the strictest legally-defined sense of the word.

11:27 / 05.12.05

I don't feel Nobody's Girl's apparent anger about it but I think she has got a point.

This is not equality. If it were then there would be civil partnerships into which all partners could enter irrespective of sex or orientation. It's not a kick in the pants off it though. Will do for me and for now. And yay!

And it's not marriage. Yes, that's up to the church to some extent. But there are many heterosexual couples who get married in registry offices. They are married in the eyes of the law and it has no religious sanction whatsoever.

The Govt has been stressing that a marriage is made by the exchange of vows whereas the queers only get to sign the register, not to sully the sacramental words: "I do". That'll do for me, though. I would hate to have to write and declaim vows like an actor in a saccharine romcom. And all the important civil and financial rights are covered, so I'm happy.

I think the tendency to call this "gay marriage" in the UK is probably helpful as it will de-sensitise the phrase and might encourage further liberalisation. The opposite seems to be true of the USA, where they're currently rolling time back to the 18th century as quick as they can.

11:30 / 05.12.05

(But, Xoc: you like saccharine romcoms...)

Page: (1)2 3