Civil partnerships - what form?

[MichaelR]

Look why is it a problem to hold a referendum on extending marriage? The last poxy government could hold a referendum that made this State officially racist, so its the least it can do by introducing a referendum (if required) to allow gay marriage.[/quote]

There is no problem with holding this referendum. Only you will lose it, and then, most likely, any form of civil union for gays will be inconceivable for quite sime time. Is this what you want?

I actually don't think a referendum is needed.

What other way is there to change the Constitution?

But it beggars belief that saying someone's partner is an in-valid family member because they are gay and think it is not a problem. Who next is to be excluded?

No, not because they are gay - sexual orientation is not a matter at all. Only because they are not married, and marriage is between a man and a woman.

Please understand that this is NOT about sexuality. This is about the kinds of couples that, for various cases, should be recognized as family. The word "family" is in the Constitution, the family is endowed with certain rights, so the legal definition of family is important.

By the way, as someone who can well be "hit" by the Citizenship amendment, let me say that there is nothing, zero, zilch "racist" about it. I'm not sure I support it, but it's not racist because it does not discriminate based on race - simple as that.

Today I watched a re-run of Oprah where a wife had come out as a lesbian and her husband was gay. They now both had second relationships, and their son considered himself lucky to now have FOUR loving parents. It was brilliant and demonstrated how we're all different, but we should all be equal.

So you would support four-way "marriage" for this case next?

I say that this is an example showing how having a good, natural family of a man and a woman is beneficial for the child, even if they realize their sexuality outside that family because of their orientation.

[MichaelR]

On the NeilW/White Horse debate, obviously, NeilW, White Horse isn't a human because he does not relate to what is best for the child and he doesn't accept that your partner is you family of choice. He can't bring himself to even validate you partner.

So now those who don't accept your idea of what is best for the child - i.e. that the father's "family of choice" (your words!) is the best for the child - are "not human"?

And therefore presumably not worthy of human rights...

Over THIS kind of thought police, give me McQuaid. He was bad, but not that bad.

[White Horse]

On the NeilW/White Horse debate, obviously, NeilW, White Horse isn't a human because he does not relate to what is best for the child and he doesn't accept that your partner is you family of choice. He can't bring himself to even validate you partner.

Why are people so interested in 'policing' us when they're own relationships are so ************************************ up in today's world?

My reluctance to refer to NeilW's "partner" is a linguistic hobby horse of mine. It is illogical, but I detest the term "partner". I won't bore you with the reasons but I detest it's use among heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. I would prefer to refer to NeilW's husband than his "partner".

On your point regarding not "relating" to what is best for the child, I think you are wrong. My whole post related to what I considered best for the child. I also assume that NeilW had the child's interest as a priority too.

As for "policing". We are all policed. You haven't mentioned whether you have children or not. I can tell you that my welfare of my children is policed by the State. I don't regard it as an intrusion and it is a worthwhile control on bad parenting.

[returning officer]

The debate above has shown that irrelevent side-issues, unrealtistic expectations/emotions (eg "we want full equality, NOW"), semantics and a little homophobia will cloud the issues in any debate on this topic. Clarity is therefore crucial.

The debate is about what people would like to see - not what they think is most likely to get carried with the minimum of fuss. I'm still not sure why deferring the issue of adoption to another day is preferable to dealing with it in the civil union legislation though. My own (fortified) belief is that the UK legislation didnt call civil partnerships "marriage" because the government (wrongly) overestimated the level of public opposition to that. Are you sure you're not falling into the same trap?

You may well be right, but I have yet to see a credible poll which supported the idea of (gay) Civil Unions, being apply to have the right to jointly apply to adopt?

Most polls ask the wrong question, or their findings are deliberatly misleading (eg a Red C poll showing support of 51% for Civil Partnerships was presented as support for "Gay Marriage" but when u#you looked at the details only 36% would provide for the right to adopt.

The Catholic Right have not gone away you know, and I think it is sensible to alienate some on the Liberal Left, than arouse the right-wing bachlash of "gays can adopt your baby, even if you are married" and "won't someone please think of the children" prior to the Rights of the Child referendum.

It ain't a principled approach, but (in my view) is more likely to achieve the right result in the end.