Does the California gay marriage ruling mean it’s time to reconsider ‘civil partnership’ terminology in the UK?
We may never go down the surrogacy route, but the point is that should we ever wish to—and we might, we can’t and won’t say—it really isn’t advisable, arguments over terminology of unions aside, to enter into a civil partnership right now. You can, of course, become a step-parent after civil partnership or marriage but it’s much, much easier to have the child before any legal ceremony. And my point in raising this is simply this: how would you explain to a child the difference between civil partnerships and marriages?
It’s only in the name assigned, which depends on whether the partners are hetero- or homosexual. And that’s wrong. Perceptually it’s also surely better and simpler and easier for a child to know his or her parents are married. Marriage is an understandable institution; civil partnership far less comprehensible as a concept, or in any social context.
I’m of the opinion that if we can’t effectively explain to little children the difference between marriages and civil partnerships, we really should be promoting marriage for all. Because there isn’t any difference, the labels came about because of religious intolerance and outrage—and do we really want to explain to our kids how hate and fear played an important part in creating the wholly false distinction, or see the looks on their faces when they come home having been bullied at school because their two mums or two dads aren’t perceived as really being married at all, and therefore not ‘real’ mums and dads?
Relationships are the bedrock of every civilisation, and love is of the utmost importance and value; children have a right to have clear explanations of love and relationships without prejudice being involved. If raised right, they don’t understand prejudice—so why do so many supposed adults roll over and accept without challenge when it is legally sanctioned and promoted? In accepting civil partnerships without question and with misplaced joy, we fail not only to promote an equal society but our kids as well.
This is a multi-page entry: page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4
tags: ceremony, civil partnerships, comprehension, equality, gay marriage, inequality, love, marriage, parenting, partnerships, perception, rights, ritual, society, surrogacy
2 comments on “Does the California gay marriage ruling mean it’s time to reconsider ‘civil partnership’ terminology in the UK?”
May 16th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I’m all for allowing anyone who so desires to get married, but let me stand and not forever hold my peace.
I’m not a fan of marriage — the legal side of things, that is. Frankly, I don’t need a government body to validate my love and caring for someone. I realize there are a few benefits in allowing the government to sanction the union, but what a mess of the people grow apart.
My thinking is it’s all down to choice. Everyone should be allow the opportunity to choose who they want their relationship to develop and grow and those choices should be done mutually between the two lives involved.
If they choose to have a government agency “validate” their relationship, they should also be well informed of the consequences of getting out of it if things go sour or the two grow apart.
That’s it, the answer to everything is education! With this epiphany, I shall solve all the world’s problems!
May 16th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
@Howard: The answer to everything IS education. Which is why politicians always pretend to see it as important but always ensure that what is taught doesn’t involve anything that would rock the boat…
x
have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment. Registration is quick and easy. Just click here to get yourself a free account.