timscience: (Default)
[personal profile] timscience
Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] la_marquise_de_ at If you only do one thing today...
Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] seph_hazard at If you only do one thing today...
Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] ozisim at If you only do one thing today...
...make sure that ALL Geeks can get married if they want to!

Dear UK Flisters,

I know I'm preaching to the choir with you guys when it comes to LGBT equality, but believing something is fair and actually getting off your bum and doing something about it doesn't always follow like it should. So here's a little (and slightly preachy) reminder!!

Three things I'd like you all to do before you go to bed tonight (if you haven't already)

1/ Go here and sign the C4EM's petition for marriage equality. This is the simplest and probably most visible way to show your support. It currently has 60,000 signatures -- the petition against (by C4M) has over 500,000!!!

2/ Go here and fill out the government's consultation. It might take a little bit longer, but you can bet that for every pro-person who doesn't find the time, there will be dozens of 'anti' people who will.

3/ Email your MP. There's a handy template there for you to use so you don't even have to think of what to say. Also, you can go here to see where your MP stands on the issue. A hugely important thing to do because the majority of MPs will be voting with their conscience rather than following the party line, so make sure you let yours know your feelings.

4/ Okay, so I lied. There's actually a fourth thing. And that is simply spread the word. The consultation ends in two day - it's our last chance to get as many people mobilised as possible. So tweet it, Facebook, blog it, beat your friends and family around the head with it until they give in!!! And if you want to repost to your own journal (and please feel free to edit), here's an ever-so helpful button

(no subject)

14/6/12 08:19 (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] zengineer.livejournal.com
My relationship is not less valid because I am not married. I am not happy with the assertion that a civil partnership is different from a marriage. I fundamentally disagree with the idea that government should have the power to define a relationship and then legislate discrimination based on that definition.
Sorry but I do feel strongly on this subject and rather differently to many on your flist (feel free to flame me).

(no subject)

14/6/12 17:29 (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] oxfordslacker.livejournal.com
I think I know what you mean (and I too am not married.) However, I can see the value of being able to officially designate someone as your next of kin, and marriage is the one(?) way to do that. Though it's inadequate in many ways, I think it's still good for more people to have access to it.

Alternative argument: some people want to get married but can't, and I see no good reason to deny them that opportunity.

(no subject)

15/6/12 08:16 (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] zengineer.livejournal.com
I was impressed by the way you chose to formalise your relationship without resorting (not quite the right word) to marriage.
A civil partnership is in all legal ways the same as a marriage and formally designates your partner as next of kin. When it was introduced I understood it was not called marriage as the compromise so that the Anglican church which as the established to church is required to marry anybody in the parish regardless of faith could avoid the issue as a matter of conscience. Of course one could argue disestablishing the Anglican church is a good thing (I would on balance) but to do it solely on a naming issue seems unduly political.

(no subject)

16/6/12 17:29 (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] truecatachresis.livejournal.com
I would be happy with extending civil partnership to all, giving marriage to the religions with no legal backing (thus allowing those religious groups that DO want to grant same-sex marriages the ability to do so) and requiring it to have a concomitant civil partnership to have any legal status. However, given the probable confusion this would lead to, I would be happier to see marriage used in this way, depriving the religious groups of their unjustified high ground.

I would also be happy to see the ability to select one's next of kin, and other rights attendant on civil partnership and marriage, individually, easily and at will. I absolutely agree that one relationship is not less or more than another due to some service or ceremony or public statement, but nomenclature does matter to some people, ceremonies do matter to some, "official" status matters to others, so all of these should be available to all those that want it.

The main problem I have with all of these arguments is the continued insistence that these legal statuses may only ever apply to one person and one other person. When will we see polyamory granted any official sanction?

(no subject)

16/6/12 21:16 (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] timscience.livejournal.com
As part of a couple who had a non church wedding, I am NOT happy to "give marriage to the religions". Religious bodies do not own marriage, they definitely don't own ours, and fuck 'em if they think they do.
Edited 16/6/12 21:29 (UTC)

(no subject)

17/6/12 06:52 (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] truecatachresis.livejournal.com
Poor wording on my part. Let them define marriage as they wish, but let others do the same. Make the civil partnership the only bit with legal status attached, and allow the religions, and other groups (and individuals), to perform marriage ceremonies according to their own preferences. If they want to attach civil partnership status to it, then they can apply to do so.

(no subject)

16/6/12 21:14 (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] timscience.livejournal.com
How in the name of holy living fuck is the government "legislating discrimination"? Rather the opposite I think. The whole idea is that same sex relationships can have the same status as opposite sex ones.

The people that actually matter here, the same sex couples who would like to be married, clearly do see the civil partnerships that they currently have access to as different from the marriages that they don't. And I rather think it's their call.

Edited 16/6/12 21:20 (UTC)

(no subject)

16/6/12 21:29 (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] zengineer.livejournal.com
The discrimination is between those that are married or in civil partnerships versus those that are not.
Civil partnerships and marriage have the same status in law.

(no subject)

16/6/12 21:35 (UTC)
jinty: (batman)
Posted by [personal profile] jinty
Why do you think you feel differently on this subject than many on Tim's flist would/do? I think I don't quite understand what you mean. I would be interested in having a civil partnership if one was available for heterosexuals but I think the point of that would precisely be that it is different from a marriage in some way - albeit in terms of emotional and historical baggage rather than in legal terms.

Re [livejournal.com profile] oxfordslacker's point on next of kin - R and I both carry "treat this person as my next of kin" cards, which I think has little legal status but ought as far as I know to do the trick in case of emergency. Of course in our case it is also simpler in that neither of our families would cause problems for us being each other's next of kin in a more protracted situation like, I dunno, dementia.

In Brazil you can declare yourselves to be in a "stable union" without being married and without having gone through a ceremony. You have to "establish it with the aim of constituting a family" but that doesn't mean that you need to want kids, just that you intend to create a family between you (reminds me of lesbians and gays being accused in the 80s / 90s of creating "pretend families"). In 2011 this was ruled as applying equally to homosexual couples as to heterosexual couples so it is applied across the board. R and I are likely to get the paperwork for this sorted out in the next few years as it means he would be able to get a visa to work in Brazil without us having to get married just to make that bit work straightforwardly.

(no subject)

16/6/12 21:49 (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] zengineer.livejournal.com
Only because many are married or in civil partnerships.
The stable union thing sounds interesting. I'll google it.

(no subject)

17/6/12 14:56 (UTC)
jinty: (Bob)
Posted by [personal profile] jinty
Good luck finding anything about it in English. Not saying you won't, I just think it's not massively likely. The portuguese phrase is "uniao estavel" if you want to try that too.

(no subject)

16/6/12 21:27 (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] timscience.livejournal.com
BTW sorry if any replies seem a little flamey I am drunk posting tonight. Also I am completely right on this one.

(no subject)

17/6/12 06:54 (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] truecatachresis.livejournal.com
I am also completely right. I think we are both always completely right, and if it appears that we disagree, that is because the universe is confused.