Great News

Keith Barrow

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Having equality and wanting special treatment at everyones expense is selfish.

????? Wanting equality and special treatment????? You do realise that this doesn't make sense.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

The difference is subtle but vital. State recognition of marriage or state definition of marriage. It's the difference between I recognise your right to ... and I grant you the right to .... but I'll take it away if you upset me.

So wrong it's unreal. A marriage is a contract (and is therefore subject to law), and currently needs to be done in the presence of a state offical (which includes Anglican Clergy) so, for example, catholics get married "twice" one by the priest, once by a registrar. This means it is under state control. Anything else isn't legally married in the UK (barring those married abroad).

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Has already been happening at a low level since civil partnerships were introduced and will only get worse.

Proof needed. And not just a link to some rabid website.

Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]

Matthew Faithfull

OK. I'm chilling :cool: Once again we seem to be agreeing to agree.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Keith Barrow

That wasn't his argument. The timing is stupid and it wasn't in the manifesto. It is also a stupid move by David Cameron, but from my point of view that's a good thing.

Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]

Dalek Dave

Marriage existed well before religions were around. It is a sensible way of telling society "We Are A Couple And These Children Are Our Responsibility". Marriage, in its truest, most simplistic form, is merely a pair bonding for the purposes of procreation and joint raising of the offspring. (qv many animals pair bond for life for this reason, and I do not see Penguin vicars performing services or sussurating incantations over the happy couple). I can't wait to see a couple of lesbian muslims wanting the local imam to betroth them, or a couple of gay men looking for the priest to bless the conjoining of their union. In fact if we just accept a couple living together as a unit as a marriage per se (as it has been from time immemorial) then what is the problem? There are many heterosexual couple who have spent years together, raised children, bought houses etc who have never bothered standing in front of a wizard to be blessed, and yet in these enlightened days we do not consider them to be 'living in sin', merely a couple of people who are together. I was with Michelle for 10 years before we tied the knot, and we did it because we felt like it, not because of any moral or legal imperative. (Plus I fancied a party). People need to get a life and realise that just because some old book written in the desert by bronze age peasants says something is wrong, don't make it so. Societies change and evolve, and those that don't, go extinct.

--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]

Jorgen Andersson

Dalek Dave wrote:

it is just the pain I couldn't take.

Then you're doing it wrong, as a friend of mine would say. And no, don't ask for clarification. I have a naturally curious orientation, but it doesn't include that.

People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.

Maximilien

All should be equal before the law of the land (wherever your land is); with the same privileges, responsabilities and rights. People should be able to get married and have their union recognized by the people and law of the land. After that, if you want to celebrate the marriage before the god of your choice , do so; if that god does not approve of your choices, choose another god. If you do not agree of other people's lawful choices, then maybe the problem is with you. The Gay marriage laws are ZERO cost laws; and eventually will make the economy grow, have you seen a simple gay marriage ? :laugh: :rose::thumbsup: (that's all I have to say on the subject).

Nihil obstat

Dalek Dave

There are, but not income tax. One can move assets to a spouse to avoid capital gains, and of course, upon a death, the spouse inherits everything without attracting inheritance tax. This is not the case for unmarried couples.

--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]

Dalek Dave

Listen, I had a doctor shove his finger up there not so long ago and it was bad enough. I would not wish for anything wider or longer to be inserted up my fundament.

--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]

Matthew Faithfull

Two things are clear. We're not going to agree and you're not going to get the point on state recognition vs state ownership, sadly few people do and that's why we're in the state we're in. I'll try one more time for the sake of others: Once this bill is passed the state will be able to declare you or I married without any contract or consent. They'll be able to decide that you and I are married because it's convenient for the state that it be so. As to proof I can offer you no more than having seen it happen with by own eyes, and no there's not a damn thing to be done about it because it's not illegal, that's the point.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Gary Wheeler

Too fucking right.

Software Zen: delete this;

Matthew Faithfull

Maximilien wrote:

All should be equal before the law of the land (wherever your land is); with the same privileges, responsabilities and rights.

People should be able to get married and have their union recognized by the people and law of the land.

We're in absolute agreement about that and of course none of that is changed by this new law.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Jorgen Andersson

I certainly hope that is doing it wrong. :~

People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.

Keith Barrow

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

you're not going to get the point on state recognition vs state ownership

No, your not getting the point that the whole thing is state-sanctioned anyway.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Once this bill is passed the state will be able to declare you or I married without any contract or consent.

Pure scaremongering. There won't be any legal status as the contract hasn't been agreed upon by any of the parties involved.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

As to proof I can offer you no more than having seen it happen with by own eyes,

I suggest you report it to the police then. This also kind of undermines your point that introducing homosexual marriage will introduce this practice, given it is already happening.

Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]

hairy_hats

Why should you get tax back? It's your choice to do it, it should make absolutely no difference to one's tax status at all, any other setup is discriminatory.

Matthew Faithfull

I'm not sure I should bother but

Keith Barrow wrote:

the whole thing is state-sanctioned anyway

Just as is going out for a walk, so don't go asking the state for license to go out for a walk because they'll give you one and then I will need one to in order to do what I have always freely done before, especially if you're not really going out for a walk anyway but inventing something new and merely calling it 'going out for a walk'

Keith Barrow wrote:

There won't be any legal status as the contract hasn't been agreed upon by any of the parties involved

No contract will be required, the law is being changed, why is this so hard to grasp.

Keith Barrow wrote:

I suggest you report it to the police

What would they do. It's not illegal with civial partnerships!

Keith Barrow wrote:

This also kind of undermines your point that introducing homosexual marriage will introduce this practice, given it is already happening.

It's already happening with civil partnerships and I was already angry about it, now it will be able to happen with marriages as well as there is no longer any distinction.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

CMullikin

Dalek Dave wrote:

I do not see Penguin vicars performing services or sussurating incantations over the happy couple

Then you haven't been watching enough nature shows. :laugh:

The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin

Worried Brown Eyes

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Except the 2 men were a landlord and his tenent. The landlord had gone along with his tennent out of the kindness of his heart to a benefits review to check the tenents qualification for housing benefit. The council official filled in a form, marked a register, falsely claimed that the tenent was a dependent of the landlord recieving succour from him ( the tenent was 2 months behind with the rent due to the councils reluctance to pay his housing benefit ). Nobody agreed to anything and the 2 men left slightly confused as to what had happened. The council now doesn't have to pay the tenent's housing benefit because his legal partner is rich. Oh and the land lord who was planning to get married next month to Arlene now cannot without being a criminal bigamist ( They'll only get around to abolishing the biggamy laws in the next parliament )

Hang on - am I reading this right (shortened to pick out the important bits) Two people can be put into a civil partnership without their consent by any council official? Sounds like a massive snafu - are there links to reports of this actually happening? Regards, Stewart

Matthew Faithfull

Stewart Judson wrote:

Two people can be put into a civil partnership without their consent by any council official?

I don't know about 'any' but yes. Given that this could be 'corrected' then you might think that's OK. Well then just sign here to get your reduced housing benefit... Oh by the way I hope you don't have any objections to being permenantly recorded as being in a gay civil partnership marriage? ( of course you wouldn't object would you because that wouldn't be politically correct so its reasonable to assume that you didn't have any objections ) Ooops, too late I already filled out the paperwork. It may indeed have been an oversight although I severly doubt it. Either way that's very little comfort to those on the recieving end. I watched this happen having turned on a documentary about 'benefit claimants' or 'life on benefits' or some such. I didn't have the context so had to watch the rerun to work out what the hell it was I just witnessed. I mentioned it to several people in the following week who had seen the same documentary. Only one actually understood what they had seen. The rest were all in denial along the lines of, "but that would be like forced marriage so that can't be what she said :confused:", except that it actually was. 'All I have to do is fill out a form. It goes on your record permanently as a lesbian civil partnership. You stayed with this person over Christmas, she helped you set up a bank account. I have reason to believe you're in a lesbian civil partnership so you don't qualify for this benefit.'-not a direct quote but as close as I can remember it. I've done a little research since and more is certainly required but yes this is as sinister as it sounds.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Worried Brown Eyes

So, it's a bit like me living in the same house as a woman (not married), but if I earned >£60k, the child benefit she gets would be taken out of my wages. We could be in a relationship or not, but if the government wants to save cash, I'm sure they would be looking for an interpretation that meant they could decide we were. Considering the number of stages we are away from the event - it happens - someone tells a researcher it has happened - the researcher packages that up for consideration - the editor of the program spruces it up for broadcast - I'm very skeptical of any resemblance to the truth. (I think this is true of most TV news, so I rarely watch). I'll be looking for reports tho.

Lost User

Stewart Judson wrote:

We could be in a relationship or not, but if the government wants to save cash, I'm sure they would be looking for an interpretation that meant they could decide we were.

Which is exactly what they are doing. They use Experian to look at credit reports to look for signs that there are two people living as a couple (married or not is irrelevant) where a lone claim has been made. As soon as they find one they stop the benefits or tax credits unless you can prove that the other person doesn't live there or is not your partner. I know someone who has been caught by this because they kept their ex's address for their mail when they moved out. The advice when separating is now to see a solicitor to draw up a document about the separation, but that is still not enough if there is a paper trail that links you to the address.

Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]