The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Equal marriage: a modest proposal

Posted on July 17, 2012 by

First things first: the hysterical flouncing hissy fit that’s just broken out all over Twitter is a depressingly predictable, dismayingly stereotypical reaction to a piece of total non-news. The Scottish Government at no point announced that there would be an announcement on equal-marriage legislation today, and it therefore follows that said announcement has NOT, in fact, been “delayed“. It’s still due by the end of this month.

Nevertheless, the issue is hugely divisive, with a huge response to the government’s consultation document and mass organised opposition from religious groups. This blog believes unequivocally in full equal rights for heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, metrosexuals, retrosexuals, picosexuals, megasexuals and any other (legal) form of -sexuals, so the solution to the seemingly-intractable problem is in fact blindingly obvious – we need to ban marriage altogether. For everyone.

At a single stroke, this pioneering, blue-sky, outside-the-envelope, common-sense move could all but obliterate nearly everything that’s currently wrong with the world, up to and including war. Think about the benefits:

1. Monogamy (and relationships in general) based on freely-given love, not the threat of a legal obligation and crippling financial/social punishment.

2. The impoverishment of thousands upon thousands of vulture-scum lawyers, currently massively enriching themselves by deliberately poisoning damaged human relationships beyond any hope of salvation.

3. An unquestionable, unarguable end to discrimination against gay people who want to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Now they will!

4. No more godawful films with “Wedding” in the title. Has there been a single one in all of history that didn’t make all sane people want to slash their wrists?

5. Nobody would ever again have to watch previously-respected family members over the age of 35 dancing to “Walk Like An Egyptian”.

6. The collapse of most celebrity magazines. With no fairytale marriages or acrimonious divorces to speculate about or pick apart, how are they going to make anyone care about Jordan and Peter Andre?

7. Deflation of the housing bubble/debt crisis. By not spunking £30,000 on a massive ceremony that nobody actually enjoys, couples will be able to afford a decent home without taking on crippling mortgages that are the driving force behind a greedy, selfish society.

(8. Or conversely, an end to the bizarre situation where a couple can suddenly demand vast amounts of free consumer goods from friends and relatives they haven’t spoken to in a decade just by splashing out on a couple of cheap rings and spending half an hour in a registry office.)

9. The inescapable fact that had this legislation been in place already, Heather Mills would be neither obscenely rich nor on TV.

10. Christians will be able to have sex, making them less of a pain in the arse and giving them something to do with their time other than write letters of complaint to the BBC whenever someone says “bum” before 9pm.

11. Without the illusory security and faux-respectability of marriage, people will think more carefully before burdening the world and themselves with offspring. So we’ll have more space, more resources to go round (therefore fewer wars), and people won’t mind using public transport so much.

12. Not unrelatedly, there’ll be one less way for the Tories/Mail/Express to whine on about “family values” while vilifying single mothers and the poor.

13. Despicable, primitive Islamic fundamentalists won’t have any excuses for raping unfortunate Muslim women any more.

14. And most importantly of all, no more bastard stag and hen parties ruining everyone else’s night out every weekend.

Who’s with us?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 18 07 12 09:25

    A Quick One to Share | laidbackviews

49 to “Equal marriage: a modest proposal”

  1. Morag says:

    Hmmm.  You make a strangely persuasive case….

  2. Tris says:

    Where do I sign?

  3. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    The only possible counter-argument is this one:

  4. Siôn Eurfyl Jones says:

    I think you are being too hard in describing all Christians as a ‘Pain in the bum’ – only the clergy really fall into that category.  The rest are just arseholes. 

  5. Shirley says:

    Brilliant. Why aren’t you running the world? I hope you’re working on it.

  6. Sneddon says:

    That video was so sugary I’ve had to adjust my insulin levels to compensate.  Pure cheese.

    why didn’t the guy just ask her and spare us all!:0 

  7. Cuphook says:

    One other benefit that you missed: divorcing parents who compete for their kids’ love. Or worse, the parents who decide to stay together for the sake of fucking up their kids too.

    I’m always perplexed by people who seek to know my marital status. I’m an individual who happens to have different relationships with other individuals when it suits us. I don’t see what it’s got to do with anyone else. I don’t approve of marriage.

    I also have a fear of meeting ‘couples’ socially.

  8. Juteman says:

    But Generation X would bever have recorded White Wedding!

  9. Oldnat says:


     “I also have a fear of meeting ‘couples’ socially.”

    It was reportedly somewhat popular in 70s suburbia (never got an invite 🙁  ) 

  10. Derick fae Yell says:


  11. MajorBloodnok says:

    In your utopia I shall miss those strapping Geordie lasses staggering around the Grassmarket on a Saturday night wearing cerise stetsons and T-shirts with the legend ‘pot my pink’ on them: it’ll make it harder for me to blend in.

  12. douglas clark says:

    I  have no axe to grind about this.
    Does this make me a good or bad person?
    You decide.

  13. mrbfaethedee says:

    For my money (apologies for bringing any seriousness 😉 –
    Remove the ability to marry people (in the eyes of the state) from all except registrars.
    Religious people can have the ‘blessing’ of their church/spiritual leader/divine being, as a separate function from the thing that society at large recognises as marriage. That’s what they want right? It’s not just about failing institutions trying to retain inordinate influence on modern society is it?
    Any discussions about whether a particular faith will tolerate particular flavours of union can then be an internal matter of discrimination for each ‘faith’ without contaminating the state recognised ‘union’ of two people recognised by actual society.

  14. Seasick Dave says:

    With my wife it was love at first hindsight.

  15. jimmyarab says:

    I think most folk agree with civil partnerships but marriage between same sex couples is going a bit too far. It’s against the teachings in the bible ( if you believe all that stuff) so why would they want to start life together in a sham marriage ?
    And how do lesbians consummate the marriage  ? Will heterosexuals be allowed to consummate the marriage with a bit of kissing as well ?
    Churches and priest who refuse to carry out these marriages will be hauled before the EU courts and severely dealt with so there can be no opt out.

  16. Oldnat says:


     “Churches and priest who refuse to carry out these marriages will be hauled before the EU courts and severely dealt with so there can be no opt out.”

    I’ve seen that kind of statement before – but never any evidence to support it. You will have a link, of course. Can you post it? 

  17. jimmyarab says:

    Oldnat..It was the main reason that the decision was postponed today. The church were told that they wouldn’t have the legal authority to ban marriage between same sex couples as it would be against the couple’s human rights. The SNP Govt realised it would lose votes from groups opposed to the legislation ( Cof S, muslims, catholics etc ) as it couldn’t give a guarantee that it wouldn’t be compulsory.
    The standard was set when B&B’s who were against offering accommodation to same sex couples were charged under the EU  human rights laws after being hounded by gay activists. Despite being given assurances beforehand by the UK govt that it would be up to owner to decide.
    Gordon Wilson had to step down from the CAB as he said he was against gay marriage. This was against CAB thinking so he had to go. Despite him saying he wouldn’t let his views affect his work with gays. He had to leave because of his thoughts.

  18. redcliffe62 says:

    It is not marriage per se that is the issue.

    I am not religious, but have sympathy for a guest house run by say Christians when it has to accept two people of the same sex share a bed for the purposes of sexual gratification.

    I agree fully that what happens in one’s own house is private, I have gay friends and in fact offered to be the sperm donor to two lesbians I know, they now have two kids using someone else who fitted their aryan stereotype……, but demanding the same said rights from religious people or they get sued is one step too far for me.  

    There are issues not just with the christian church but to aspects of the muslim community as well, who see such actions as unacceptable to their god, with the threat of eternal damnation. This is a vote changing issue for some.

    So equality is fine, in theory, but it has to be made clear where the boundaries are to avoid civil unrest, as this is far more likely to cause it than ructions involving a football team from Govan. 

  19. douglas clark says:

    I just love the idea that homosexuals are going to go for it at every and any opportunity. Perhaps they are a different species from you and I? Most nights, I fall asleep reading a book. The assumption that sex is the only reason for going to bed is a great leap of faith, or, more probably, wishful thinking. It is the whole problem of defining people in a one dimensional manner. Homosexuals are never just tired, they are always up for it…………………
    Frankly, whatever christians and muslims think about this is a sort of moral compass for me. Whatever they think, think the exact opposite.
    You won’t go far wrong.
    “Civil unrest?”
    Don’t be daft. A very important event occurred at Hampden and the amount of “civil unrest” around that is a big fat zero. And that is about something most people actually care about. You should note, everyone should note, that religiosity is a declining error in our society at large.

    Religion is an annoying blemish on our society. It isn’t worth listening to. For no-one cares anymore.

  20. douglas clark says:

    A joke.
    Higgs Boson walked into a chapel.
    The priest said:
    “We don’t want your sort here!”
    Higgs said:
    “You can’t have mass without me!”
    This is brought to you by the irreligious majority that actually constitute our nation. With a hat tip to whoever made it up! Or, if you like:

    “Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
    Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait…
    The Earth began to cool,
    The autotrophs began to drool,
    Neanderthals developed tools,
    We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
    Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
    That all started with the big bang!

    “Since the dawn of man” is really not that long,
    As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
    A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
    The bipeds stood up straight,
    The dinosaurs all met their fate,
    They tried to leap but they were late
    And they all died (they froze their asses off)
    The oceans and pangea
    See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya
    Set in motion by the same big bang!

    It all started with the big BANG!

    It’s expanding ever outward but one day
    It will cause the stars to go the other way,
    Collapsing ever inward, we won’t be here, it wont be hurt
    Our best and brightest figure that it’ll make an even bigger bang!

    Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
    Debating out while here they’re catching deer (we’re catching viruses)
    Religion or astronomy, Encarta, Deuteronomy
    It all started with the big bang!

    Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
    It all started with the big bang!
    It all started with the big BANG!”

    There are, possibly, errors in that. But it is subject to correction in less than the historical time scales that religion takes for granted.

  21. Colin Dunn says:

    redcliffe62 says:
    “I am not religious, but have sympathy for a guest house run by say Christians when it has to accept two people of the same sex share a bed for the purposes of sexual gratification.”

    Good grief. Do you genuinely believe that being gay is all about sex? Just one small step to the right from that attitude to all gays are paedophiles. Cripes.

  22. Waqar Ali says:

    Best. Suggestion. Ever.  My girlfriend and I have often mused aloud on how marriage is a giant pointless sham.
      Also, redcliffe62, I’m sorry, but what the fuck?  Seriously?  What a pathetic bunch of arguments. “Oh noes, I’m so regressive and homphobic, but I’m all sadfaced because those bad bad gays get to have equal rights, boo hoo, how do lesbians do it without willies!?”
      Seriously, get a hold of yourself =/.  It’s like having the misfortune of reading a comment by someone in the US south, it’s THAT bad.  This is Scotland, not a cesspool of religious right wingers.  What an idiotically ignorant and homophobic thing to say =/.

  23. Barbarian says:

    You could add no pressure from would-be grandparents to jump into the sack and start making babies, ironic that considering that prior to marriage we had to disappear up some back roads to erm….well…..ahem

    But here we go again. A government proposes something to ensure euality amongst all…….until they realise that votes are at risk. What’s the problem? And if ALL parties are in support of same-sex marriage, then on balance there is no impact.

    And I nearly put the boot in the tv yesterday, when the gentleman representing the Catholic Church kept interrupting his opposite number. He really needs to learn to behave if he wants people to listen to him. The newsreader eventually told him to shut up.

  24. Waqar Ali says:

    I also call bullshit on the whole “They only haven’t made the decision yet because they’re scared of losing votes”.
      Er, no?  Didn’t you read the blog?  They always planned to have it at a set date, which isn’t today. 
      Also, about the whole interrupting people thing…ugh.  Whether it’s a member of the church or a unionist politician, it seems the one doing the interrupting is always the one with the weak, flacid argument.

  25. Embradon says:

    Jimiarab 11:15 and 12:20
    “It’s against the teachings in the bible.” Well I am wearing mixed raiment and coveting my neighbour’s bacon roll – so probably deserve to be stoned. 
    As I understand it, the Catholic church still will not marry divorced people.
    No-one seems to have challenged them through the courts on that.
    Its odd that JC had very little to say about homosexuality yet the churches seem obsessed with it. He had a great deal to say about greed, money changers and the rich – but that seems to be glossed over.
    I’m with Stu on the marriage thing  – as a step on the way to banning organised religion.
    Maybe being stoned would not be so bad. Let one who is without sin pass the first joint…..

  26. R Louis says:

    An interesting idea, banning marriage.  I can see the real attraction.

    However, getting to the point of same sex marriage, I really cannot see a problem. Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark have had same sex marriage (as opposed to civil unions) for many years.  The sky did not fall down.  Straight people in those countries can still get married.

    The whole world is watching Scotland right now, regarding its decision on this matter, and Scotland can show itself as a modern thinking progressive democratic country, that fosters logical thinking and equal rights by making marriage available to all people, or it can show itself as a parochial, wee, small minded, backward country obsessed with the frankly ridiculous viewpoints of the superstitious. Let us hope the superstitious homophobes do not get their way.

    On a final point, I’d like to echo what some others have said regarding the absurd ‘guest house’ comments above.  The notion that gay people are only in a relationship for sex, is by and large absurd, it is no more the case for gay couples than it is for straight couples.  If we go down the road of barring gay couples from guest houses where do we stop???  should we then say it’s ok to have signs saying ‘no blacks’ on guest houses, or ‘no muslims’ on guest houses???  Or would it just be gay people we would discriminate against??  The entire notion is just hate filled nonsense, masked by religious hubris.

    As george Orwell put it, ‘everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others’.

    Seriously, trying to ban gay people from a guest house is nothing short of disgraceful.  Too many of these superstitious religious zealots in Scotland abuse their religion as a vehicle to hide their quite blatant homophobia.  What most of these people think they know about gay people would fill volumes, but what they actually know would fit on the back of a postage stamp.

    Let’s see some genuinely enlightened thinking on this matter.  Nobody is wanting to force churches to perform gay weddings.  This is merely about ensuring that those religions, such as the quakers, who DO want to conduct religious gay weddings (and which the law currently prevents) can do so freely.

  27. R Louis says:

    Regarding the absurd comments by jimmyarab;  ‘its against the teachings of the bible.

    Here are few other things the bible says you shouldn’t do – although most seem to get ignored by the religious bigots.  It seems they only adhere to those biblical passages, which support their own personal bigotry.

    These are ALL real and in the King James bible.

    Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
    Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
    Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
    Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
    Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)  
    If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). 
    If a man sleeps with his father’s wife… both him and his father’s wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
    If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death.  (Leviticus 20:14)
    If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). 
    If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be “cut off from their people” (Leviticus 20:18)
    Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death.  (Leviticus 20:27)
    If a priest’s daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake.  (Leviticus 21:9)
    People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
    Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community.  (Leviticus 24:14-16)
    Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

    I am indebted to the following source;

    Oh, and the King James bible.


  28. douglas clark says:

    Well, whoever wrote Leviticus is some crazy, mixed up dude. I expect it is the 2000 odd years of history since then that has changed opinions! At least for most of us….

  29. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “That video was so sugary I’ve had to adjust my insulin levels to compensate.  Pure cheese.”

    I genuinely don’t believe in marriage, but anyone who can watch that video without suddenly finding bits of dust in both their eyes has rocks for a soul. Regardless of whether or not you hold with the end, man alive, you have to take your hat off to the means. Big Isaac is the love-daddy, and I salute him with respect and awe.

  30. Sneddon says:

    bLeviticus , was he getting paid by the word?  Old testament bollocks!
    If the fundies want to live in a god fearing place either invent a time machine or move to the bible belt.

    ‘May your god be with you’

  31. John Lyons says:

    My view is I don’t bleieve in God, but I don’t try to stop others who do believe in God from practising the religion of thier choice. I wish the church would adopt the same attitude and bugger off and let the rest of us get on with living our lives the way we want.

  32. jimmyarab says:

    R Louis..
    I should have made clear that I wasn’t defending the bible. I’m well aware of the ability of the church / believers to pick and choose the bits of the bible that they like.
    The Queen is the head of the Church of England yet is a billionaire. I’m not sure if that follows the bible teachings of renouncing all of your worldly goods before you can be a christian. Or the eye of the needle theory for the camel / rich person etc…
    I looked at ECHR policy on same sex marriage and the two most recent cases ( from France) decided that it wasn’t a human right to demand same sex marriage in member countries but that once it was legislation in the UK / Scotland then all places of worship registered to carry out religious marriages must also carry out same sex marriages or face prosecution..
    Religion Law Blog: Same Sex marriage and the European Court

  33. jimmyarab says:

    The church wants to be left alone to do it’s own thing but the Scottish Government won’t allow it to do this.

  34. Doug Daniel says:

    Presumably Christians running a guest house also ban unmarried couples? After all, if I’m in a strange bed with a girlfriend, I would most certainly be engaging in sex before marriage. Overtly religious people have a terrible habit of being extremely hypocritical. 
    Anyway, organised religion is just an outdated form of mind control that still lingers on today. We no longer believe in rain gods, sun gods etc, so why do people still believe in the things they read in a book which was exposed as a work of fiction the second someone first discovered dinosaur bones? The only thing that needs banning is religion. It ruins too many lives.

  35. douglas clark says:

    Doug Daniel,
    The rain gods have won. What is this sun god of which you speak? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of it!

  36. Doug Daniel says:

    Well, I often see people talking about this Sun God in the same breath as our First Minister, so I can only assume it’s him.

  37. Cuphook says:

    @Oldnat – Suburban couples are the worst. They often have barbecues where Pinot Grigio is taken as a synonym of sophistication – and feel the need to invite me.

    In all seriousness though, I don’t believe in marriage and I don’t see why the state should regulate the relationships of citizens. The only role the state should have, if needed, is to protect the interests of minors caught up in the fallout of acrimonious splits. 

    I think honesty is the basis of any relationship and most people are incapable of being honest with themselves. We’re not brought up to appreciate the wonder of our own personalities and the result is a dysfunctional society full of anxious individuals who jump into relationships at the first sign of loneliness. Adding the fairytale wedding and the happy-ever-after expectations to that mix is just asking for trouble.


  38. Gaavster says:

    @Doug D – 

    But wait! The sun is surely a giver, creator and taker away of life…. <and no, I’m not talking about Murdoch and his cronies> without it, nothing would live or grow…. maybe the ancients were closer to the mark than we give them credit for….

    Ergo, Rain Gods must have a wee say in the matter an aw…


  39. Waqar Ali says:

    “Anyway, organised religion is just an outdated form of mind control that still lingers on today. We no longer believe in rain gods, sun gods etc, so why do people still believe in the things they read in a book which was exposed as a work of fiction the second someone first discovered dinosaur bones? The only thing that needs banning is religion. It ruins too many lives.”
      Brilliantly said Doug =)

  40. jimmyarab says:

    I mentioned dinosaur bones to jehova’s witnesses ( who used to visit me but seem to have stopped – can’t think why) and they said they were planted by the devil to try and confuse us. The world was really just 6,000yrs old and the 3billion year old bones were fakes.

  41. Sneddon says:

    Rev,   It  was not the means that ‘scared’ me but there are a million better songs out there.
    Also I can think of better, more romantic way to do it than propose using a  pop song.  Mind you if he did it to ‘Bat out of Hell’ I wouldn’t blame her for running away:0
     But maybe I’m just getting too jaded or cynical (or possibly I’m turning into my dad!) but I suppose the song had special meaning for both of them(it will now)

  42. Appleby says:

    Banning marriage as a legal entity is the only fair way to do it as otherwise people who aren’t homosexual (when this passes) or heterosexual couples are still exluded from many of the benefits of this legal entity’s presence – singles/casual/dating/etc., non-married people who are still in relationships of various forms, bigamy laws, polygamy laws, etc. No fair provision for these people as there’s no media backing or popular or trendy types on telly campaigning for it and so on. So that leaves them in the lurch with them still treated as criminals in some cases. There’s often no good reason (or none better than the “GOD SAID IT!” level of debate) “I’m all right Jack…”, comes to mind.
    Rev Stu’s solution is the best and only fair leveller and it does it in one stroke for everyone. It’s also the only one that doesn’t require constant expenditure of public money, enforcement and/or threats of violence or imprisonment and so on to back it up and make it mean anything. It doesn’t require much in the way of costly legislation or legalese and lawmaking. If it is no longer a recognised legal entity then the churches would also have no real complaints as no one could interfere with their otherwise meaningless ceremonies (To non-followers, as they’d have no more standing outside their group’s opinion than kids saying “cross your heart and hope to die” or whatever) and the wide spectrum of human relationships would not have to put up with one group getting something they don’t (which is the real problem and irritation at heart).
    It would also leave people free to do their own thing personally if they chose to have some symbolic ritual (secular or otherwise) of their own design or desire with it having no more or less rights than those with other or no ceremonies at all and no one could interfere with that. So the wedding photographers and dressmakers/suit hire companies don’t need to break out in a sweat just yet.

  43. megabreath says:

    On first learning that gay activists wanted the same right to marry as the rest of the population I couldnt help but think they were a touch mistaken.Marriage/Divorce/family-why would they want all that merde?It isnt all sweetness and light and is often destructive and generally a pain in the proverbial.Yes-in the name of freedom abolish it completely,this reverential institution.tasty.Yet,in the absence of this fine idea I think the point is more about equality of status before the law than wanting to marry per se(for some at least)Marriage defined on principles of gender establishes a norm that is exclusive,as norms often are and not always to anyones detriment.In this case though it appears exclusivity is established from a religious pretext and as the state is secular and ought to apply standards of equality to all citizens then the exclusivity may be exercised by said Religious organisations but not the state.So,let the ceremonies roll on and the fairytale carriages gather outside the registrars office.Go for it.

  44. R Louis says:

    Here’s an important wee point.  The idea behind equality for gay people is the same as it is for others.  However, having said that, there are some seriously daft myths surrounding it.

    As a gay person, I want marriage equality because I am no less a person than somebody who is straight.  I deserve the same rights, no more, no less.   Religious people say, ‘ah yes, that’s all well and good’, but we want the freedom not to have to conduct such services.  The notion that gay people will force ministers to marry them against their wills, by taking them to the European court, is frankly absurd.  Would anybody want to get married by a minister who is only present because you took him to court???  NO.  Dinnae be daft.

    In my mind, religious people can do it if they like, or refuse to do it if they like – but at present, the law makes it illegal, even if a minister WANTS to do it.  That is the problem. At present, it is illegal to even say so much as a prayer during a civil partnership, regardless of where it is held. Even civil partnerships held in a hotel, may not include ANY religious aspect, not a prayer, not a blessing, not a reference to god, or any other deity at all, in any way.

    As for registry offices, they are public servants, and will as per their role carry out services regardless.

    A final point, just because it is called marriage, doesn’t mean it will necessarily take the same form as a ‘straight’ wedding.  When I get married, there will certainly be no ‘fairytale carriages’, maybe just a rather excellent ferrari, and a quick trip to the registry office – I’m not religious in any way.

    I do however, want it changed to become marriage, as civil partnership still does not provide full equivalence in law. 

  45. Holebender says:

    The idea of banning marriage entirely certainly has merit and I’d support such a move.
    The idea of equality of marriage (gay, straight, whatever) is so blindingly obvious that it shouldn’t even need to be argued.
    One aspect which hadn’t occurred to me until I read it somewhere recently is that the present situation forces many people to reveal their sexual orientation while form filling. At the moment, marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples and civil partnership is restricted to homosexual couples. This means that anyone who completes a form which includes a question on marital status is unwittingly revealing his or her sexual orientation to the recipient of the completed form. That is just plain wrong and violates the privacy of the individual. This alone is an overwhelmingly powerful argument for complete equality of status and title for any legally recognised relationship between two (or more) people.

  46. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I do however, want it changed to become marriage, as civil partnership still does not provide full equivalence in law.”

    I was under the impression that it did. Can you enlighten me as to what differences remain?

  47. R Louis says:


    Bad wording – haven’t got much time today.  

    The difficulty involves the fact that by being termed something other than marriage, it is effectively a separate category of union.  Thus, it can never be equivalent, as in law it isn’t.

    The example another poster makes about this regarding form filling is partly the kind of thing I mean, i.e

    are you

    a single

    b married

    c in a civil partnership.

    To be fair, many organisations now put marriage/civil partnership together, but not all.

    In many ways, having civil partnerships put on an equal footing in law with marriage, would end the distinction.  It would also make ALL matters regarding marriage much simpler.

    The easy way to determine if civil partnership give ‘equality’ is to ask yourself the question, what if red headed people were not allowed to marry in Scotland, but the Government realising how wrong it was then passed a law allowing redheads to get legally recognised, but that they would not be allowed to call themselves married, but merely ‘civil partners’.  Most people would find that absurd.  Yet, that is EXACTLY the situation with civil partnerships for gay people.  By allocating a completely different and unique category solely for them, it is by its very nature discrimination.

    If gay people are truly equal in Scots law, then they do not need a separate category of union, called civil partnership.  It really is that simple.


  48. pa_broon says:

    Personally, I don’t give a crap about gay marriage, unless of course someone incredibly attractive and a wee bit blind wants to propose to me.

    However, and while I’ve never been on a gay pride march or banged a drum about much of anything, putting marriage on equal terms regardless of the various appendages your partner happens to, or not to have hanging from his or her body would send a very positive message to the many young folks growing up with doubt in their minds about their sexuality.

    You can read any number of stories about young people who have been made to feel so miserably wretched about their situation, they’ve simply taken their own life. On this, I do feel strongly and do bang the drum.

    The simple fact is, anything that fuels the notion that homosexuality is somehow wrong or aberrant, should be challenged vociferously and enthusiastically. Some religions are part of this and fuel the hatred & lack of understanding.

    I would say, the person most peddled out on behalf of the catholic church is one John Deighan. His rationale is that same sex marriage is wrong because there can be no procreation. Which does beg the question, where is the love?

    I don’t know who said it but; ‘if you don’t like same sex marriage then don’t do it’ makes a lot of sense to me. I reckon we need to get to a place where we don’t have to preface any verb with the word ‘gay’ in order to differentiate it as something different from the ‘norm’.

    To any young people reading? See that religious arse telling you you’re less worthy of love than the person next to you? Have a wee look at some of the other things he or she believes then compare and contrast with what they ‘believe’ about you.

  49. mutterings says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says: July 19, 2012 at 10:19 am  I was under the impression that it did [provide full equivalence in law]. Can you enlighten me as to what differences remain?
    From the Equal Civil Marriage Consultation (for England/Wales): “Civil partnership and marriage are two entirely separate legal regimes with different pieces of legislation covering each of them. … Married couples and civil partners are entitled to similar rights and responsibilities but there are some differences around eligibility for some pension rights and laws around adultery and non-consummation and courtesy titles.”
    On the topic of Catholic Marriage: one of the elements for a valid Catholic marriage is the willingness to have children (through procreation). This can be an issue for hetero couples, too. My understanding is that the Church can refuse to marry a couple where one or both of the partners are unwilling to have children. It might also be a possible reason for an annullment, but I am not too sure about this.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top