UK becomes a bit more equal

After Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden the UK finds itself in a race with France to become the 12th place in the world where marriage equality becomes a nation-wide reality. Channel 4 used the opportunity to air a segment about Britain’s changing attitudes towards gay rights.

Gay rights: Britain's changing attitudes

Some minor legal inequalities will remain under the proposed marriage equality legislation in the UK though as, the Guardian points out:

Those who draft the parliamentary bills have been unable to define what constitutes consummation of a same-sex union. Consequently there is no provision for divorce on the grounds of non-consummation of a gay marriage.

That problem also means that same-sex couples who wish to divorce will not be able to cite adultery with someone of the same sex – the civil servants similarly struggled to find a definition of adultery between two men or two women. Adultery will, nonetheless, be a permitted grounds for divorce if it follows sexual intercourse between one of the couple and someone of the opposite sex. That, at least, is consistent with existing marriage laws: if a man decides he is gay and leaves his wife for a man, she can divorce him for unreasonable behaviour but not adultery, which is defined as sexual intercourse.

  

8 thoughts on “UK becomes a bit more equal”

  1. Consummation? Adultery? Divorce? What tempests the Brits brew in their teapots! Anal intercourse among queers is not so widespread as porn flicks would have us all believe, so consummation will just have to be left up to the couple involved. Perhaps swallowing would do. As for adultery, any sex outside of the marriage is adultery, regardless of whether anybody gets fucked or not. No blowjobs or handjobs except with hubby. Keep your mouth shut and your hands in your pockets. There that’s solved. As for grounds for divorce, obviously it’s also time for no-fault divorce in the Kingdom. Straight couples would appreciate that as well.

    Why gays want to get married eludes me. Haven’t we suffered enough already?

    1. I like the idea of having choices. Just like straight people have choices. Whether I like the idea of marraige or not is irrelevant. I don’t like someone deciding for me my options and taking them away.

  2. It is technically not yet a bit more equal and this is so far only for England and Wales. The bill has several hurdles to leap before it can be passed into law. Let us not rejoice prematurely, but let us smile and hope the bill is not derailed.

    Scotland has a prospective law of its own to pass, and Northern Ireland seems unwilling to even enter into considering the concept.

  3. Yes this is very good news, however if I understand this correctly, it still needs to be passed by the House of Lords there. I’m hopeful this is just a formality, and it will be accepted into law. From what I’ve read, it appears that if passed, it won’t go into effect until 2015. As for the question of what would constitute consummation or adultery in a same sex relationship, I find that a bit humourous. Talk about arguing over trivial semantics. If one is sexually intimate with another in any way, that should be legally good enough.

    “Why gays want to get married eludes me. Haven’t we suffered enough already?”

    I’ve discussed this before, as there are some extremely good reasons for same sex marriage, and it’s mostly based on legal privileges within a civil marriage contract. Briefly, there are things like you become your spouse’s next of kin, you can’t be held to testify against your spouse, if your spouse becomes ill and hospitalized, you are allowed to visit him, there are legal tax advantages, and so on. Google legal marriage privileges to see a more complete list.

  4. More free? Yes, in this respect.
    My congratulations!
    But less free in other respects ( for example, all dogs in England must be microchipped, a new law.) Dogs today, children tomorrow, then everybody else.. for their own good, of course.
    Equality? I wouldn’t give a piece of shit for equality.

    1. Compulsory microchips for dogs may seem Draconian but so far we have largely managed to keep the U.K. free of rabies and we have a real problem with irresponsible dog owners, feral dogs and filth in too many areas of our towns.

      One thing that all Americans and Australians should realise is that the population density of the U.K. is hugely high in comparison to yours. Consequently, we have problems not readily apparent to your goodselves.

      After returning home to the UK from the USA I freak out trying to park my car into our miniature slots at the supermarket. We have no space remaining for anything. So preserving rights for a bunch of dogs is not high on the agenda at all. Quite the reverse.

      Furthermore, the national identity card scheme initiated by our chief arsehole war criminal Bliar ((truly a horrid person but beloved in the USA)) was totally scrapped at great cost as soon as we had a change of government. So, with regard to freedoms – we’re not perfect but doing fairly OK getting things balanced.

      1. Sorry Upikinonme but it is a weak excuse.
        In some American states ( like Massachusetts, Connecticut, New-Jersey) population density is higher than in UK. Not speaking of countries like Singapore, Hong-Kong, Netherlands, Korea.
        Again, it’s about freedom, not troubles with urban rubbish. If it is so good, why it is not voluntary?
        I think that decision is about equality ( “everybody must pay his fair share” in dogs’ shit), that is opposite to freedom.
        I’m afraid of the very conception of equality, really.
        I ( and my lazy cat :) ( whom I’ll never microchip, whatever sheriffs say)) prefer freedom to equality, eight days in a week.

  5. However, there’s still no semblance of equality for minors, whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Gay rights activists say marriage is about love and not gender – but somehow it’s all about numbers and ages? They’re hypocrites. Whether corrupt, murderous governments should or should not equally recognize gay relationships seems like a distraction from more critically important and truly progressive concerns such as the basic rights of minors, the sex offender registry, people going to prison for pictures, etc.

Leave a Reply