The first Civil Partnerships are being celerated today in England and Wales. The most famous of these is undoubtedly that of Elton John, but there will be thousands of others.
Some religious commenters are suggesting that this new law in some way undermines the sanctity of marriage, but I can’t see that. It seems to me that, whatever you might think of the morality of homosexuality, simple justice should allow one’s life partner the benefits associated with marriage.
There was a moving story in yesterday’s Independent about the first gay couple to contract their partnership in the UK. Matthew Roche and Chris Cramp celebrated their partnership on 5th December after receiving special permission. The following day, Matthew died.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Chris T. 12.21.05 at 5:20 pm
For me, this move in the UK strengthens the sacrament of marriage. I will be even more heartened when those rights are associated with the word “marriage” and extend to the US, as well.
dh 12.21.05 at 5:29 pm
“…simple justice should allow one’s life partner the benefits associated with marriage.” but that in affect condones the behavior and I feel that this type of thing is a priviledge rather than a right. Since I feel God doesn’t condone the action as compared with marriage, why should they get the same benefits as someone who is married? They already have the justice outside of the marriage act. Why should they have extra privileges for something that is a right.
dh 12.21.05 at 5:30 pm
How does it strengthen marriage when the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman and no reference to same sex is mentioned? To me this is why I feel it undermines it by promoting something that inappropriate.
Kim 12.21.05 at 5:40 pm
The move certainly strengthens social stability, as well as social justice, as even secular conservatives concede.
And while I am not sure that the term “marriage” is a helpful description for same-sex partnerships, either theologically or tactically - and I say this after conversations with several lesbian/gay people - nevertheless the notion that same-sex partnerships undermine the traditional institution of marriage is nonsense on stilts. There is no zero-sum game being played.
dh 12.21.05 at 6:36 pm
Again “To me this is why I feel it undermines it by promoting something that inappropriate.” in light of the Bible mentioning that marriage is between a man and a woman and that same-sex marriage is never condoned by God.
Social stability and social justice? I don’t think so in light of the above. They can have both of those without having marriage as part of that. Nonsense. I think I have mentioned these things to show that it is not nonsense.
Again “They already have the justice outside of the marriage act. Why should they have extra privileges for something that is a right.”
Nathan 12.21.05 at 7:17 pm
What, no mention of the three-way “cohabitation contracts” now issued in the Netherlands? You know, you’ve got to be fair to the bisexuals, too.
dh 12.21.05 at 8:19 pm
Nathan, love the sarcasm. I think this statement from the sarcasm of it shows how it is not nonsense as well.
dh 12.21.05 at 8:19 pm
I think you would agree with me on the issue. Where do we draw the line?
Richard 12.21.05 at 8:30 pm
Here’s why it promotes justice, dh. Under the law as it was, a gay couple could have been together for thirty years or more, but when one partner dies the other could find themselves shut out of funeral arrangements and evicted from their home. If one were in hospital, the other could be denied information or any say about treatment. The new law prevents that sort of injustice, and I call it a Good Thing.
dh 12.21.05 at 9:37 pm
Isn’t that what wills for? Come on this is such a red-herring. To call this an injustice when people can issue wills for this sort of thing is in my opinion a BIG stretch. To me it isn’t an injuctice if people don’t take responsibility to have a will for this sort of thing. Also, is it justice to have marriage looked at in the same way as same sex unions? I feel if it is looked at the same that it downgrades the marriage between a man and woman (this is said in conjuction with Nathan’s wonderful sarcastic staterment).
Ben Myers 12.22.05 at 12:14 am
Hi dh. Do you also think heterosexual people who have been in long-term de facto relationships should have no civil rights? After all, in this case too “God doesn’t condone the action as compared with marriage”.
dh 12.22.05 at 4:28 am
I look at it the same way as I do same sex. I’m consistent in this. They to have civil rights in that they can get married or they can have wills. To me this is consistent in both cases and as you can see no double standard. I know a majority who feel like I do regarding same sex marriage who would agree with me on this as well. Many assume double standards that are truly not there because people on the “other” side project that onto us.
Swan 12.22.05 at 3:58 pm
“when one partner dies the other could find themselves shut out of funeral arrangements and evicted from their home. If one were in hospital, the other could be denied information or any say about treatment” - For the first and the last one, they can make up a Durable Power of Attorney contract. The house should be joingly owned (that goes for married couples as well as in this instance, even though the consequences may be not as severe) and, like dh said, can take care of most of what happens after one dies.
Just thinking this through. There may be good arguments, but these are not it, I think.
Swan 12.22.05 at 3:59 pm
I was going to say: a will can take care of most of what happens after one dies.
dh 12.22.05 at 6:33 pm
Swan, thanks for the additional clarification. I totally forgot about Durable power of attorney or as a further addition I thought you might be interested in that I original didn’t think of Joint tennents with right of survivorship.
It seems this pretty much shows that all of this can be covered without having same sex marriage.
Richard 12.22.05 at 6:36 pm
OK, there may be other legal mechanisms that can make possible all the benefits of the Civil Partnership Act. Which causes me to question why anyone is objecting. If a couple can make an Enduring Power of Attorney (as it’s called in the law of England and Wales) without causing the irretrievable breakdown of the institution of marriage, why should the new Civil partnership Act be any different? The Act only obliges Local Authorities to register partnerships - they do not have to provide any ‘ceremonial’ if they choose not to and one Scottish council has chosen just that course.
But I just do not see the logic behind saying that Civil Partnerships undermine marriage.The Act confers certain rights on couples whose partnerships are registered. That they have those rights in no way infringes those of married couples.
dh 12.22.05 at 8:42 pm
It is the problem with calling it “marriage” that is the problem. Also, why just leave it alone and use these other legal mechanisms as opposed to promoting this behavior with these type of Laws or acts? That is why people like myself are reacting. We see the “smoke and mirrors” with regard to this issue and the “point behind” promoting this particular act or law. Especially in light of marriage in the Bible being between a man and woman alone. It is promoting a priviledge that is equal to marriage and to place same sex marriage as equivilent to marriage by making marriage in those cases something the Bible says its not.
Richard 12.22.05 at 10:47 pm
It isn’t called marriage. It’s called civil partnership.
Beth 12.24.05 at 2:29 am
Richard, Kim - why do you bother? You will never change the mind of a bigot, be their bigotry based on right-wing politics, ignorance and stupidity, hatred and fear, a shallow reading of the Bible, or, in most cases, a combination of the above. Bigots will never see gay people as deserving of equal human rights; it’s a blessing that they will even admit that gay people are human beings.
dh 12.26.05 at 5:24 pm
I take great offense that you call me a bigot. I am not. Just because I feel homosexuality is a sin and shouldn’t be promoted doesn’t mean I don’t love and care for them. No one is preventing them from getting together even though it is wrong. I just don’t feel as a society it should be condoned. Reading Rom 1 shallow or Paul given the status of those who practice those things, heck it is even part of the lust of the flesh (I know there are other sins mentioned I’m just mentioning this to show that “this” is included)? I don’t think so
Beth 12.26.05 at 11:33 pm
dh - I take great offence at most things you say, so I guess we’re even.
Sorry, everyone, but I lose my Christmas cheer when dealing with this kind of hateful crap.
dh 01.01.06 at 4:05 pm
It is hateful to call homosexuality a sin? Man, I love them like Christ loves them. I had a friend at my place I used to work who was gay but who knew my stance. We got along great. He even gave me a parting gift when he left for another job. Come on, I guess in this day in age people would call Jesus “intolerent” for saying to the adulterer “Go and sin no more” because He mentioned the act as a sin. Can’t people not support the act and not want it condoned and still be tolerant? This hostility to people who feel it is sin but yet love them without harshness does a disservice to the Body of Christ. I never, I repeat never support hostility toward gays or any group. However, that doesn’t change or contradict how I feel God disaproves of the act. Hateful, I’m sorry you feel that Christ’s words to the adulterer are hateful because from your logic that is what you are saying.
Dave Warnock 01.01.06 at 9:13 pm
dh,
Given that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality it could be argued that it is a sin to focus on this issue when Jesus had a lot to say about the hypocricy of the “righteous”, on loving God, on loving our enemies, …
Dave
dh 01.03.06 at 4:16 pm
Just because Jesus never mentioned it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a sin especially since the Apostle Paul mentioned it. I have never focused on this issue to the detriment of the other issues.
I think your response proves my main point I said earlier: “Come on, I guess in this day in age people would call Jesus “intolerent†for saying to the adulterer “Go and sin no more†because He mentioned the act as a sin.”
dh 01.03.06 at 4:19 pm
Dave it is a balance. We need to individually live for Him in thought, word and deed as Christians who love Jesus. For me I could also say the reverse about people saying things are okay on something that the Bible clearly mentions as a sin (lust of the flesh). I’m not focusing solely on homosexuality but ALL of those mentioned. I only mention this because people say this is not a sin when in fact it is.