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)

Our Lady Has Left the Building

15:35 / 05.12.05

But I would say that homophobic was too strong a claim to make. For it to be homophobia it would need actual negative intent, at most this is just cluelessness and the fact that BBC News tends towards feeling that any news that can't be reported in a couple of hundred words isn't worth reporting. When the BBC frequently misreport science stories, is that active malice at work there?

15:57 / 05.12.05

Ganesh, I agree. Legalising straight gaymarriage would certainly be my preference.

Lady, the title of this thread sounds a bit OTT to my ear too. Although claims in the article that “Under the new rules, same-sex couples can register their partnership with the council and claim the same rights as a married couple” don’t sound particularly appreciative of the rights some gay people might still wish to claim (a right for their union to be sanctioned by their religion or the recognised religion of their country, their right to call themselves married without inverted commas, etc) but cannot. And I don’t think there has to be active malice or 'intent' involved for a charge of homophobia to stick.

16:36 / 05.12.05

I've suggested a title change to

"Homophobic" BBC Scotland Online?

Which would seem to retain the sense of the original while leaving the matter open to debate...

16:53 / 05.12.05

I've just disagreed that change. If Nobody's Girl wants to change it, then that would be ok but I don't see a good reason for doing so otherwise. Mostly, I am uncomfortable with changing a poster's words on the grounds that we disagree with them.

Nobody's Girl thinks the BBC coverage is homophobic. You can argue with that if you like, but that doesn't justify changing the title that NG wants.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:07 / 05.12.05

I'd be more concerned right now that what this thread is actually about - civil partnerships and the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 - is not mentioned in the title or the topic summary. That, it seems to me, is a better reason for proposing moderation.

17:32 / 05.12.05

Agreed. I've proposed a change to the abstract.

20:33 / 05.12.05

Mostly, I am uncomfortable with changing a poster's words on the grounds that we disagree with them.

My suggested ammendment was neither based solely on the grounds that I personally did not agree 100% with the opinion being expressed, nor did my proposed change touch the words at all. I merely suggested alterations to the grammar to turn a contentious statement into a question, opening the contention up to debate. Not that it matters much now it's been vetoed...

*

06:17 / 06.12.05

So can religious institutions other than the Anglican Church perform marriage? I would assume so, right? So if there's a recognized religious institution which wants to perform marriage for th' qweers, how long before they cry religious discrimination?

Or is this question so patently inapplicable to the situation in the UK that y'all are shaking your heads thinking "Only an American..."?

06:23 / 06.12.05

you may have a point, but i cant think of a religious denomination that has been vocal about the right to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

perhaps that would be a good angle to fight from.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:49 / 06.12.05

So can religious institutions other than the Anglican Church perform marriage?

First up, Anglican describes the communion, not the church - that is, there are many different churches which partake of the Anglican Communion. The two Anglican churches we are concerned with here are the Church of England and the Church of Wales.

The Marriage Act of 1949 provides for two different ways to get married. One of those is through the Church of England or the Church of Wales, the other is through any other means. So, the short version is "no". You can have a religious wedding, in the sense that you can have a holy person telling you that you are now married in the eyes of the divinity or divinities of your choice, but that doesn't make you married in the eyes of the state. For that, you need to have performed the civil ceremony beforehand.

So, for example, I believe that there have been for some time non-comformist churches who will perform some form of religious solemnisation of the partnership of gay men or lesbians, and certainly the liberal wing of the Church of England has given "blessing" to gay partnerships, but these have had no more force in terms of legality than going to confession would on your status as a criminal in the eyes of the law.

OJ

15:17 / 06.12.05

Indeed. I can see gay men and lesbians here being used much as Scotland itself used to be - as a test bed for broader legislation.

Jumping backwards a bit - Haus, are you thinking that this legislation is being introduced and tried out in Scotland first? It isn't. Due to a misinterpretation of the legislation about the waiting period the first partnerships (I typed wedding there and had to replace. What a slip.) will take place there first. But that's all.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:01 / 06.12.05

The key term here is "used to be", OJ. I was thinking of the period when the Thatcher government was prone to trialling things in Scotland ont he grounds that none of them lived there. In this case, I meant that civil partnerships for same-sex couples might be acting as a test bed for civil partnerships being made generally available as an alternative to marriage.

OJ

16:06 / 06.12.05

Ah! Completely misread that, sorry. What you say does make sense. I'm not sure whether it's true though. I assumed that making Civil Partnership so definitely not "marriage" was an attempt to show that wasn't going to happen.

22:46 / 07.12.05

Bit tangential, this, but an interesting twist.

OJ

10:18 / 08.12.05

It is interesting, but I must be hard of understanding because I'm not quite sure whether the Civil Union ceremony they went through is Civil Partnership, and if so, how they've managed to do so before 21st December.

The couple were granted an early release from divorce proceedings by a judge at Northampton County Court on Monday - allowing Bernadette a new birth certificate showing her as a woman - and then took part in the civil union ceremony. Quoted from linked article.

09:11 / 14.12.05

A bit late here, but as well as placing myself firmly in the "if you won't call it the same, don't claim it is the same" camp, I'd like to point out - as no-one seems to have mentioned anything so far - that the legislation *doesn't* quite give the same rights legally. From a document about diversity training sent round by the organisation I w*rk for:

There are some areas where discrimination might still occur and would not be illegal. For example, same-sex partners might be denied certain benefits such as an occupational pension survivor’s benefit if they are specifically restricted to married partners only.

So, it's still perfectly legal to offer benefits to married people, while telling the gayers to **** off. I'm not sure whether this technically works both ways - for example, an organisation headed by someone possessed by TEH GAY AGENDA could give benefits to those in civil partnerships only - but even if it is, I don't think it's a stretch to say that any such inequalities would disproportionately discriminate against same-sex partners.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:43 / 14.12.05

OJ - lazy reporting, probably. I imagine they filled in the forms for a civil union, which will be confirmed in 14 days' time along with all the other applications which will be celebrated on the first day.

12:19 / 19.12.05

Huh, Peter Tatchell neatly makes my point today in the Guardian-

"While this milestone is a cause for celebration, it also has a downside. For the first time in modern British legal history, instead of repealing discrimination parliament has reinforced and extended it. Civil partnerships are for same-sex couples only. Straights are excluded. Conversely, marriage remains reserved for heterosexuals, to the exclusion of gays. The differential treatment of hetero and homo couples is enshrined in law. Welcome to segregation, UK-style. The homophobia of the ban on same-sex marriage is now compounded by the heterophobia of the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships. It's official: one law for heterosexuals and another for lesbians and gays. Since when have two wrongs made a right?"

He even goes on to make the analogy with racist segregation that I hesitated to for fear of a messy argument.

15:55 / 19.12.05

Well, Tatchell's Tatchell. He's never been one for gradualism. A lot of the time, he irritates me - but I'm always glad he exists so I don't have to be him.

In response to his final point, I don't see the current change as a "wrong" because now I'm able to enjoy the same legal rights as my straight, married siblings. Of course, the fact that they wanted church weddings and I don't doubtless adds to my sense of non-dissatisfaction.

07:46 / 20.12.05

Church weddings are icky. Out of maybe half a dozen weddings I've been to in the last six or seven years, only one couple were truly religious, and they were Catholic so they'd had it buggered into them rather than it being a proper informed choice. But their wedding felt "okay", the others seem a bit odd... why am I in church mouthing the words to hymns and listening to some bloke bang on about God (best one was in Wishaw in which dour Presbyterian snarled: "You think you know each other? You think you love each other? Wait 'til one of you is lying on a bed, ravaged by cancer or something, with your face all shrivelled up like a prune, then decide if you love each other.")?

Besides, whatever it's called on the statue books, the tabloid shorthand of "gay wedding" will persist.

09:27 / 20.12.05

I think it will Sax. Nobody has asked me if Ganesh and I will be going for "Civil Partnership". Everyone asks "Are you two getting married?" Only the gayers have called it CP and not even the majority of them.

I was in my twenties before it was even legal to have gay sex in Scotland so I'll continue to accentuate the positive with this one and not piss on the parade. We have come so far.

09:51 / 20.12.05

Just think, within a few short years it will be accepted practice for teh gays to have all the benefits of heterosexual marriage, to wit, not having sex, conducting huge rows at Christmas, and moaning to attractive strangers: "My Civil Partner doesn't understand me."

09:53 / 20.12.05

We do that already. Especially the lezzers.

10:40 / 20.12.05

"You think you know each other? You think you love each other? Wait 'til one of you is lying on a bed, ravaged by cancer or something, with your face all shrivelled up like a prune, then decide if you love each other."

This is what happens when you let people write their own vows.

11:17 / 20.12.05

And I was only exaggerating a wee bit.

13:03 / 20.12.05

I see Peter Tachell was at Elton and David's Hen Night. Hope he shut up for long enough to enjoy the filthy, institutionally homophobic canapés.

16:12 / 20.12.05

Pah. That's just canaping heterosexuality.

19:46 / 20.12.05

You do wonder if Peter Tachell would be any fun at parties... but then again he would have somew interesting stories to tell, like the time he attempted to Arrest President Mugabe...

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

04:42 / 21.12.05

Terminology's also a factor- let's face it, "civil partnership" doesn't sound particularly romantic, does it? It's like "it's just a legal thing... heaven forbid that we have to actually think about same-sex couples being in love or anything like that..."

17:38 / 21.12.05

I'm just thrilled to bits. So many gayers dressing up smart and signing the big book.

This report brought the biggest lump to my throat.

Thirteen couples have already formed civil partnerships in England and Wales under special arrangements since the law permitting them came into force on December 5.

The first was lung cancer sufferer Matthew Roche and Christopher Cramp, of Brighton, who received special permission to go ahead with the service at St Barnabas Hospice in Worthing, West Sussex on December 5. Mr Roche died the next day.

Page: 1 2(3)