CIVIL OR UNCIVIL - THAT IS THE QUESTION
Had a brilliant time on Thursday when our dear friends Brian and David undertook, and subsequently celebrated, a Civil Partnership. It was a perfect day and a perfect ceremony and party as only they could arrange. But it led to an interesting thought....
Talking to other gay couples that afternoon the question was whether or not to call it a marriage. For me that isn't the problem. My man is totally against 'getting married', sees it as a step towards doomsday - so why can't hetero couples have a civil partnership too? I know they can get married in a register office and that's called a civil ceremony - but they are still 'married' whereas a 'civil partnership', quite separate from a 'wedding' would imply that it was only done for legal reasons and that you'd stay together for love anyway. There would be no organised 'words' apart from the ones you chose and a registrar saying 'Are you eligible to do this? Does anyone object? Do you know what you are doing? Good - the go for it and sign here!'
And what would be resolved is: If anything happened to one of us the other is totally secure in being able to determine what would happen on medical grounds, on burial rights and on inheritance details without interference from relatives that have no communication with the living!'
I think that would be very fair indeed... don't you?
posted by Diva of Deception @ 1:09 pm
3 Comments:
Well, yes... But the thing is, there are some gay people who think that the changes in the law fell short in not allowing a Civil Partnership to be called a 'marriage' or a 'wedding'.
Of course, the essential difference is that - until CPs became a possibility - same-sex couples had no way of securing the rights you are talking about, whereas heterosexual couples have always had protection by entering into formal contract in the form of a religious wedding or a civil ceremony.
What one does about people who don't see the desire/need for a sense of security within a relationship is altogether different and one that cannot be legislated for in law...
Hmmm.... yes I do see what you are saying but it would be nice to give the more reticent another option. I know you don't have any option and that now you have one, maybe not the one you wanted.
But... there was a time when some people actually talked about having a commitment ceremony on the lawn of a local hostelry which was very fetching then - now it's become a Beefeater!!!!! And the idea has gone downhill too...
It's an odd one, and there are differences between how various countries are tackling it. That probably makes the situation even more challenging. For example, in NZ, civil unions (the equivalent) are available to all, allowing straight couples the option to tie the knot in a way that has no religious overtones.
Now, the civil union between myself and my husband is recognised as equivalent in the UK. But I couldn't tell you what your status would be if you and Rob went to NZ and got civilly unionised there, and then came back here. I'm not sure that one has been thought out yet.
Although the married vs partnered (or equivalent) can be tricky, the nice thing is that the service and party can still be called a wedding.
Post a Comment
<< Home