Apart from adultery and consummation, Civil Partnerships are almost the
same legally as Marriages. So why do gay pressure groups want to change
the law on marriage to include gays? The answer is simple: they want
everyone to use the term "marriage" to describe a close relationship.
This change in the meaning of an everyday word would be a new departure in law making. We will no longer be able to use the word "marriage" as we choose, conventional use will be punished. It will be punished because The Equality Act 2010 will make it obligatory to discipline any employee who objects to the use of the terms "marriage", "husband" and "wife" for gay couples. The clauses in the Equality Act that relate to what people say and the
opinions they express must be removed before marriage laws are changed. It will also, increasingly, be punished by the media taking the moral high ground and using the new law to bully anyone who is determined to stick to the old usage of "marriage" as homophobic etc. There is no room for diversity of opinions in our modern world, they will be condemned and the gang will feel superior.
The only way that these changes might be acceptable is to amend the Equality Act 2010 (see Equality Act 2010 - read it and be afraid) to remove all of the clauses that relate to speech, opinions and beliefs. The Equality Act must be amended anyway because it makes a mockery of a free society. It is well known that the Act is in conflict with freedom of religion but the Act also comes into conflict with the right of ordinary people to speak freely. Government can say that changes to the law on marriage will not compel anyone who disagrees with it to change their behaviour but this is a lie, the Equality Act will compel people to change. Indeed, the Equality Act can be used to compel people to accept almost any legislation without discussion if that legislation is framed in the language of rights, races, genders, nationalities or religions.
We seem to have forgotten the declaration of faith in democracy of our forefathers: "I might not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". Is the Enlightenment truly over?
Once you compel people with the law to change their mode of speech where will it end? Will we be sacked if we call someone a "Tory"? If you think this is a "small thing" and "why not let people be called by the words they desire?" you are missing the point, people are being compelled by the state to use the word "marriage". If you think this compulsion is acceptable then you are pro-gay rights but anti-freedom of speech but without freedom of speech there will be no "rights".
Returning to Gay Marriage, why do gay people want to be called "married"? According to Parliamentary briefing: Same Sex Marriages and Civil Partnerships:
"The most significant difference between the two types of union is that a valid marriage can be entered into only by a male and a female, whereas a civil partnership is available only to same-sex couples. There are also other differences, including:
• civil partnership can only be a civil, and not religious, procedure, whereas opposite-sex couples can, in relevant circumstances, choose to have either a religious or a civil marriage ceremony
• adultery is not a ground for dissolution of a civil partnership (as it is for divorce), nor is consummation a criterion for legal validity (as it is in marriage); however, infidelity may be a contributory factor where ‘unreasonable behaviour’ is cited as a ground for seeking dissolution of a civil partnership
• there are differences in procedure: a civil partnership is formed when the second partner signs the relevant document, whereas a civil marriage is formed when the couple exchange spoken words and then the register is signed."
So there is little difference between Civil Partnerships and Marriage except the name, and adultery and non-consummation being grounds for dissolution. If required Civil Partnerships could be amended to include the necessity of sex and a clause against infidelity. It is only the name, "marriage", that is at issue.
Gay pressure groups such as Stonewall want to change the law on marriage (especially the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) and have proposed a draft Marriage Bill so that "husband and wife" is changed to "parties to a marriage", and not being male and female in a marriage and already being pregnant by donor conception are not grounds for anullment. They have also asked for an odd amendment so that a marriage is not void if a person is already married provided the couple to be married already have a civil partnership. Stonewall have not mentioned in their draft bill that they must also be changing the meaning of "consummation" to mean sex between two people of the same sex.
Stonewall also want a Minister of the Crown to be given the power to change the Act without referring to Parliament. Handing arbitrary power to Ministers is an appalling idea.
Normally even minor changes to Marriage Acts involve weeks of debate but Parliament seem to be in the mood for changing the Marriage Acts wholesale at a single vote.
The parties in Westminster really don't represent me or many of the people I know, most of whom are horrified at being forced by law to use a particular mode of speech. All I can say to them is don't do it, don't ever vote Tory, Labour or Lib-Dem again.
Note: Whilst a majority of people support the change in the law to allow gay marriage as a legal right (45% pro, 36% anti) a majority are also very much against a change in the meaning of the word "marriage". ComRes asked if people agreed with the statement that: “Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman” 70% of people agreed, with 22% disagreeing.
See
Can you choose to be Gay?
Has representative democracy become unrepresentative?
Gay marriage, gay civil partnerships and gay families
The new law sanctioning Gay marriage will not, on its own, compel people to use terms such as Marriage, Husband and Wife when describing Gay couples. However, when the word "marriage" becomes a legal term for Gay Partnerships the Equality Act 2010 will ensure that anyone who objects to the new usage of words can be punished severely. You will not be allowed to speak freely. The greatest irony is that in the 1960s there would have been no change in the status of homosexuals without the insistence on free speech by the bulk of the population, many of whom found homosexuality "disgusting" but still stood up for Gay Rights on principle. Now we are all so holy that many would be happy to see the livelihoods removed of those who say things that are offensive to homosexuals. I can scarcely believe that the whole country is not
in uproar. Free speech transcends the rights of special interest
groups.
 |
| A Gay Marrigae, Courtesy Wikipedia |
The only way that these changes might be acceptable is to amend the Equality Act 2010 (see Equality Act 2010 - read it and be afraid) to remove all of the clauses that relate to speech, opinions and beliefs. The Equality Act must be amended anyway because it makes a mockery of a free society. It is well known that the Act is in conflict with freedom of religion but the Act also comes into conflict with the right of ordinary people to speak freely. Government can say that changes to the law on marriage will not compel anyone who disagrees with it to change their behaviour but this is a lie, the Equality Act will compel people to change. Indeed, the Equality Act can be used to compel people to accept almost any legislation without discussion if that legislation is framed in the language of rights, races, genders, nationalities or religions.
We seem to have forgotten the declaration of faith in democracy of our forefathers: "I might not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". Is the Enlightenment truly over?
Once you compel people with the law to change their mode of speech where will it end? Will we be sacked if we call someone a "Tory"? If you think this is a "small thing" and "why not let people be called by the words they desire?" you are missing the point, people are being compelled by the state to use the word "marriage". If you think this compulsion is acceptable then you are pro-gay rights but anti-freedom of speech but without freedom of speech there will be no "rights".
Returning to Gay Marriage, why do gay people want to be called "married"? According to Parliamentary briefing: Same Sex Marriages and Civil Partnerships:
"The most significant difference between the two types of union is that a valid marriage can be entered into only by a male and a female, whereas a civil partnership is available only to same-sex couples. There are also other differences, including:
• civil partnership can only be a civil, and not religious, procedure, whereas opposite-sex couples can, in relevant circumstances, choose to have either a religious or a civil marriage ceremony
• adultery is not a ground for dissolution of a civil partnership (as it is for divorce), nor is consummation a criterion for legal validity (as it is in marriage); however, infidelity may be a contributory factor where ‘unreasonable behaviour’ is cited as a ground for seeking dissolution of a civil partnership
• there are differences in procedure: a civil partnership is formed when the second partner signs the relevant document, whereas a civil marriage is formed when the couple exchange spoken words and then the register is signed."
So there is little difference between Civil Partnerships and Marriage except the name, and adultery and non-consummation being grounds for dissolution. If required Civil Partnerships could be amended to include the necessity of sex and a clause against infidelity. It is only the name, "marriage", that is at issue.
Gay pressure groups such as Stonewall want to change the law on marriage (especially the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) and have proposed a draft Marriage Bill so that "husband and wife" is changed to "parties to a marriage", and not being male and female in a marriage and already being pregnant by donor conception are not grounds for anullment. They have also asked for an odd amendment so that a marriage is not void if a person is already married provided the couple to be married already have a civil partnership. Stonewall have not mentioned in their draft bill that they must also be changing the meaning of "consummation" to mean sex between two people of the same sex.
Stonewall also want a Minister of the Crown to be given the power to change the Act without referring to Parliament. Handing arbitrary power to Ministers is an appalling idea.
Normally even minor changes to Marriage Acts involve weeks of debate but Parliament seem to be in the mood for changing the Marriage Acts wholesale at a single vote.
The parties in Westminster really don't represent me or many of the people I know, most of whom are horrified at being forced by law to use a particular mode of speech. All I can say to them is don't do it, don't ever vote Tory, Labour or Lib-Dem again.
Note: Whilst a majority of people support the change in the law to allow gay marriage as a legal right (45% pro, 36% anti) a majority are also very much against a change in the meaning of the word "marriage". ComRes asked if people agreed with the statement that: “Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman” 70% of people agreed, with 22% disagreeing.
See
Can you choose to be Gay?
Has representative democracy become unrepresentative?
Gay marriage, gay civil partnerships and gay families
Comments