Restore Marriage

Repeal the laws that undermine marriage such as Labour's taxes and civil partnerships. Repeal the Divorce reform act which brought in untold misery by allowing selfish people to destroy their's children's lives. Annul civil partnerships which do not qualify as marriage.  Basically restore marriage to its rightful position as the bedrock of our society.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the laws that undermine marriage such as Labour's taxes and civil partnerships. Repeal the Divorce reform act which brought in untold misery by allowing selfish people to destroy their's children's lives. Annul civil partnerships which do not qualify as marriage.  Basically restore marriage to its rightful position as the bedrock of our society.

Define marriage as between two adults, not man & woman

Change the part of marriage law stipulating marriage to be between a man & a woman, and make it instead between two adults.

Simultaneously, you can alter civil partnership law to the same effect, so people of any orientation can have whichever partnership they feel is best for them.

Churches can still do as they please, but civil marriages & partnerships would be for everyone.

 

(Needless to say, other restrictions to do with incest, polygamy, forced marriage, underage marriage, bigamy, etc would stay in place, before some make claims equating gay marriage with all these.)

Why is this idea important?

Change the part of marriage law stipulating marriage to be between a man & a woman, and make it instead between two adults.

Simultaneously, you can alter civil partnership law to the same effect, so people of any orientation can have whichever partnership they feel is best for them.

Churches can still do as they please, but civil marriages & partnerships would be for everyone.

 

(Needless to say, other restrictions to do with incest, polygamy, forced marriage, underage marriage, bigamy, etc would stay in place, before some make claims equating gay marriage with all these.)

Define marriage as between two adults, not man & woman

Change the part of marriage law stipulating marriage to be between a man & a woman, and make it instead between two adults.

Simultaneously, you can alter civil partnership law to the same effect, so people of any orientation can have whichever partnership they feel is best for them.

Churches can still do as they please, but civil marriages & partnerships would be for everyone.

 

(Needless to say, other restrictions to do with incest, polygamy, forced marriage, underage marriage, bigamy, etc would stay in place, before some make claims equating gay marriage with all these.)

Why is this idea important?

Change the part of marriage law stipulating marriage to be between a man & a woman, and make it instead between two adults.

Simultaneously, you can alter civil partnership law to the same effect, so people of any orientation can have whichever partnership they feel is best for them.

Churches can still do as they please, but civil marriages & partnerships would be for everyone.

 

(Needless to say, other restrictions to do with incest, polygamy, forced marriage, underage marriage, bigamy, etc would stay in place, before some make claims equating gay marriage with all these.)

Polygamous, time limited civil partnerships

Since it is now usual for 2 people in a marriage or civil partnership to work, it has raised the bar so that 2 people prettymuch have to work.

If you have children then this creates a problem of neglect – what is needed is someone to stay at home.

If you had 3 people in your partnership then either one could stay at home or work shifts can be arranged so the child can be better looked after.

But it doesn't just apply to when a child is involved – some people would like so say that they are financially tied to each other and eg. want the rights of a spouse in a hospital or just to show their love to the ones closest to them.

So I suggest that people should be able to form a partnership with anyone they like and any number of people. Perhaps not call it marriage as that comes with too much baggage.

This partnership should be time-limited at the start for perhaps 20 years at which point it can be renewed, or if there is a serious problem before this time then a "divorce" is possible but shouldn't be easy.

Some restrictions would be needed to ensure dangerous cults are not created or that people are not forced into this. Also if the partners are closely related this doesn't give them any more right to biologically create children given the likelyhood of defects.

Of course those wishing to go for their "Till death us do part" marriage is perfectly OK still.

Why is this idea important?

Since it is now usual for 2 people in a marriage or civil partnership to work, it has raised the bar so that 2 people prettymuch have to work.

If you have children then this creates a problem of neglect – what is needed is someone to stay at home.

If you had 3 people in your partnership then either one could stay at home or work shifts can be arranged so the child can be better looked after.

But it doesn't just apply to when a child is involved – some people would like so say that they are financially tied to each other and eg. want the rights of a spouse in a hospital or just to show their love to the ones closest to them.

So I suggest that people should be able to form a partnership with anyone they like and any number of people. Perhaps not call it marriage as that comes with too much baggage.

This partnership should be time-limited at the start for perhaps 20 years at which point it can be renewed, or if there is a serious problem before this time then a "divorce" is possible but shouldn't be easy.

Some restrictions would be needed to ensure dangerous cults are not created or that people are not forced into this. Also if the partners are closely related this doesn't give them any more right to biologically create children given the likelyhood of defects.

Of course those wishing to go for their "Till death us do part" marriage is perfectly OK still.

Abolish Legal Gender

 

Our society maintains a distinction between male and female for legal purposes that is increasingly unnecessary and causes problems in certain areas.

 

While it seems obvious, it is not clear what defines someone as male as opposed to female.  Almost all of the sports associations have removed tests to determine someone’s gender as it has proved too difficult to do.  There are people who can satisfy both sets (or neither set) of characteristics (typically intersex people), people who wish to be recognised as the gender opposite to the one they have been registered in (typically transgendered or transsexual people) and people who feel they don’t belong in either gender.  Yet the classification of someone as male or female takes place on an arbitrary inspection at birth and is sometimes wrong – one could argue always wrong in the latter group of individuals.

 

We have two distinct types of legal relationship depending upon the assigned gender of the parties entering into it – if the people are registered as the same gender then they must create a civil partnership, while if they are registered as different genders then they must create a marriage.  A legal process has already been started challenging this restriction by a heterosexual couple who wish to register a civil partnership.

 

We have a process for re-assigning the legal gender of people, although this is different according to whether the person is deemed intersex or transsexual.  However, those transsexual people who have no wish to dissolve their loving and supportive marriages are forced to remain legally recognised as the gender opposite to that they function in, and which is indicated on their passport and driving licence.  This causes much hurt and stress.  Additionally some intersex conditions are now falling in the middle between the Gender Recognition Panel and the medics, again leaving people stranded in the wrong gender.

 

 

All the time other legal distinctions between the genders are being torn down.  The Equalities Act is another attempt to outlaw discrimination on the basis of gender.  The pensionable age is being equalised.  Women now serve alongside men in our armed forces.  Women pay the same rates of tax and national insurance, and are eligible for the same level of benefits as men.  Even the Queen seems to have indicated that daughters should now hold their place in the line of succession.

 

The suggestion is simple, and is that people should no longer be legally "marked" as one of male or female.  This removes the artificial distinction between civil partnerships and marriages, and makes redundant the process of changing gender.

 

 

There will still be a need to have medical and social classifications, but the legal marker (which causes so many problems to a marginalised few in society) is redundant and should be removed.

Why is this idea important?

 

Our society maintains a distinction between male and female for legal purposes that is increasingly unnecessary and causes problems in certain areas.

 

While it seems obvious, it is not clear what defines someone as male as opposed to female.  Almost all of the sports associations have removed tests to determine someone’s gender as it has proved too difficult to do.  There are people who can satisfy both sets (or neither set) of characteristics (typically intersex people), people who wish to be recognised as the gender opposite to the one they have been registered in (typically transgendered or transsexual people) and people who feel they don’t belong in either gender.  Yet the classification of someone as male or female takes place on an arbitrary inspection at birth and is sometimes wrong – one could argue always wrong in the latter group of individuals.

 

We have two distinct types of legal relationship depending upon the assigned gender of the parties entering into it – if the people are registered as the same gender then they must create a civil partnership, while if they are registered as different genders then they must create a marriage.  A legal process has already been started challenging this restriction by a heterosexual couple who wish to register a civil partnership.

 

We have a process for re-assigning the legal gender of people, although this is different according to whether the person is deemed intersex or transsexual.  However, those transsexual people who have no wish to dissolve their loving and supportive marriages are forced to remain legally recognised as the gender opposite to that they function in, and which is indicated on their passport and driving licence.  This causes much hurt and stress.  Additionally some intersex conditions are now falling in the middle between the Gender Recognition Panel and the medics, again leaving people stranded in the wrong gender.

 

 

All the time other legal distinctions between the genders are being torn down.  The Equalities Act is another attempt to outlaw discrimination on the basis of gender.  The pensionable age is being equalised.  Women now serve alongside men in our armed forces.  Women pay the same rates of tax and national insurance, and are eligible for the same level of benefits as men.  Even the Queen seems to have indicated that daughters should now hold their place in the line of succession.

 

The suggestion is simple, and is that people should no longer be legally "marked" as one of male or female.  This removes the artificial distinction between civil partnerships and marriages, and makes redundant the process of changing gender.

 

 

There will still be a need to have medical and social classifications, but the legal marker (which causes so many problems to a marginalised few in society) is redundant and should be removed.

Equal tax, legal and benefit treatment for unmarried “couples”

When it suits the Government, to save money (welfare, grants, council tax benefits etc), any possible way in which any person who can possible be made to support you will be used to bring their income and capital in to deny you benefit or funding. This is wholly irrespective of the true facts of the situaiton, the way in and arrangements under which the persons concernd do actually and wish to live and relate financially to each other, and wholly disregards the fact that such financail support cannot be legally enforced when there is no marriage or civil partnership in existence.

Yet where there is no marriage or civil partnership, there are in law no rights of inheritance or under intestacy, no rights of next of kin, no rights of support upon separation and no rights to calim several beneficial tax exemptions or other provisions. 

The law must be made equal in all areas. If marriage is to be recognised as having some different and differential effect (a big question in itself) then those who have not married (or civil partnered) should not have to be treated as if they have.

Make your minds up, please, and give equal treatment accross the board.

And if so-called "partners", persons with whom one is deemed by state officials to be living with "as if husband and wife" – or whatever the far from sufficient and satisfactory definitions are – must under benefits law support another person then let this be legally enforceable. Let them be required to pay the other person's Council Tax and other necessary bills, given them a legal right or duty to deduct expenses and add income, to have or own shared assets as a couple/household in all circumstances.

Why is this idea important?

When it suits the Government, to save money (welfare, grants, council tax benefits etc), any possible way in which any person who can possible be made to support you will be used to bring their income and capital in to deny you benefit or funding. This is wholly irrespective of the true facts of the situaiton, the way in and arrangements under which the persons concernd do actually and wish to live and relate financially to each other, and wholly disregards the fact that such financail support cannot be legally enforced when there is no marriage or civil partnership in existence.

Yet where there is no marriage or civil partnership, there are in law no rights of inheritance or under intestacy, no rights of next of kin, no rights of support upon separation and no rights to calim several beneficial tax exemptions or other provisions. 

The law must be made equal in all areas. If marriage is to be recognised as having some different and differential effect (a big question in itself) then those who have not married (or civil partnered) should not have to be treated as if they have.

Make your minds up, please, and give equal treatment accross the board.

And if so-called "partners", persons with whom one is deemed by state officials to be living with "as if husband and wife" – or whatever the far from sufficient and satisfactory definitions are – must under benefits law support another person then let this be legally enforceable. Let them be required to pay the other person's Council Tax and other necessary bills, given them a legal right or duty to deduct expenses and add income, to have or own shared assets as a couple/household in all circumstances.

Full Marriage Equality

Too long have LGBTQ people not been able to share in the relationship of marriage. And we are not happy with being shoved into a separate and unequal box that is Civil Partnership. For the word – Marriage to be a part of law, It cannot have anything to do with religion. This is why I believe that we should all be able to marry legally, or none of us should. If the masses, and/or the religiously fervent, try to explain that a minority cannot have marriage because it offends them, then Marriage by name should be taken out of the law, and all relationships should be converted to Civil Parterships/Unions. A number of people will be against this idea whenever it is announced, but this is a campaign for equality. Full equality. Not segregation. Not "You are not good enough for that, but we'll give you this too keep you happy."

 

Also – A Conservative Party spokesman confirmed Mr Osborne had told Mr Tatchell: "David Cameron and I are very happy to consider the case for gay marriage."

This has not yet come around, and there should be a proper debate on the issue, of whether attempting to legalise segregational laws is segregationalist. (Candidly)

 My "Idea" is to legalise marriage for all, or to convert every single relationship in the country to a "Civil Partnership''. They are the only ways we can achieve equality. Personally, i would prefer the former, but it is not my decision.

And I am personally sick of people trying to sidestep this issue with – Separate, but Equal. Let me tell you something. Separate can never be Equal.

Why is this idea important?

Too long have LGBTQ people not been able to share in the relationship of marriage. And we are not happy with being shoved into a separate and unequal box that is Civil Partnership. For the word – Marriage to be a part of law, It cannot have anything to do with religion. This is why I believe that we should all be able to marry legally, or none of us should. If the masses, and/or the religiously fervent, try to explain that a minority cannot have marriage because it offends them, then Marriage by name should be taken out of the law, and all relationships should be converted to Civil Parterships/Unions. A number of people will be against this idea whenever it is announced, but this is a campaign for equality. Full equality. Not segregation. Not "You are not good enough for that, but we'll give you this too keep you happy."

 

Also – A Conservative Party spokesman confirmed Mr Osborne had told Mr Tatchell: "David Cameron and I are very happy to consider the case for gay marriage."

This has not yet come around, and there should be a proper debate on the issue, of whether attempting to legalise segregational laws is segregationalist. (Candidly)

 My "Idea" is to legalise marriage for all, or to convert every single relationship in the country to a "Civil Partnership''. They are the only ways we can achieve equality. Personally, i would prefer the former, but it is not my decision.

And I am personally sick of people trying to sidestep this issue with – Separate, but Equal. Let me tell you something. Separate can never be Equal.

marriage should be a secular arrangement open to same sex couples

Same sex couples are still discriminated against because they are not legally allowed to marry. The church claim that marriage is a religious arrangement and yet non religious hetero sexual couples can be married in non religious state ceremonies, eg registry office weddings. Therefore non religious same sex couples should be allowed to be married in the same way that non religious straight couples can. Civil Partnerships are a step forward but still do not provide equality. Marriage ceremonies performed at registry offices are not allowed to have any religious content and is secular arrangement. This kind of marriage should be permitted to gay people.

Why is this idea important?

Same sex couples are still discriminated against because they are not legally allowed to marry. The church claim that marriage is a religious arrangement and yet non religious hetero sexual couples can be married in non religious state ceremonies, eg registry office weddings. Therefore non religious same sex couples should be allowed to be married in the same way that non religious straight couples can. Civil Partnerships are a step forward but still do not provide equality. Marriage ceremonies performed at registry offices are not allowed to have any religious content and is secular arrangement. This kind of marriage should be permitted to gay people.

Gay marriage instead of civil partnership

I am a 26 year old woman, all I want is a wedding with my partner with big white dresses, flowers, the whole shebang, the same as any other 26 year old woman I would imagine. The problem is my partner is also a woman so we are not permitted the simple right to get married, we may only have a civil partnership, I don't want to introduce her to the world as my civil partner, I want the right to call her my wife and be afforded the same liberties and rights as my straight counterparts. I'm not someone who screams from the rooftops or marches on Whitehall, I just feel very let down that we could travel to Spain, probably the most catholic country in Europe, and have the wedding but our country for which we work hard and contribute alot will not recognise our status. Lets not have one kind of fair for one group and another for another group, if the limitation was set by skin colour or hair colour there would be wars over it.

Why is this idea important?

I am a 26 year old woman, all I want is a wedding with my partner with big white dresses, flowers, the whole shebang, the same as any other 26 year old woman I would imagine. The problem is my partner is also a woman so we are not permitted the simple right to get married, we may only have a civil partnership, I don't want to introduce her to the world as my civil partner, I want the right to call her my wife and be afforded the same liberties and rights as my straight counterparts. I'm not someone who screams from the rooftops or marches on Whitehall, I just feel very let down that we could travel to Spain, probably the most catholic country in Europe, and have the wedding but our country for which we work hard and contribute alot will not recognise our status. Lets not have one kind of fair for one group and another for another group, if the limitation was set by skin colour or hair colour there would be wars over it.