|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I have received this from a regualr correspondent of mine who is a UK Local Councillor (Elected representative):
Following a free vote The Civil Partnerships Bill has passed it's third reading (389 for with 47 against) in the Comons and been passed to the Lord's. It is thought to be extremely unlikely to fail.
If successful the Bill will receive Royal Assent before the end of the year and come into full effect twelve months later.
During the morning before the third reading the House of Commons successfully repeated a total of 43 various Acts that could possible have caused problems with the implementation and enforcement of the Bill. This included an old Mental Health Act classifying us a mental deviants, the Prisons Act so that gay inmates have the same rights as married inmates, an obscure reference in a Custom and Excise Act from the 19th century. They weren't satisfied with merely repealing clauses, they repealed entire Acts and follow up legislation associated with them. One Act which does deserve mention previously permitted religious organisations and churches to discriminate against gays in various ways if such discrimination was practiced in a building owned by a religious body. The Acts concerned with sexual discrimination are to be tightened up to clearly make it an offence to discriminate in word, print, or act. Several religious bodies have been instructed to tightly control their clerics in this regard.
It goes without saying that Ian Paisley and company were bordering on apoplexy. Some members risked censure by telling Paisley exactly what they thought of him.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its a good thing, but in light of recent EU legislation decisions they really had little choice, and i think, iif parliament hadn't so enacted, the courts would have eventually granted gay couples the same legal rights regarding heritance and next of kin etc as differnet sex couples.
the case law has tended to be decided as art 8 under art 14 of the ECHR, with recent cases being Karner v Austria (ECHR2003) as the precedent for the landmark ruling Ghaiden v Mendoza (HL2004) in which a same sex partner was recognised as the legal spouse under provisions of the rent act 1920 as amended.
that case alone would have set precedent for other cases so that even without civil partnerships, same sex couples would have the same rights as differnet sex long term cohabitees.
still, its a good way forward. its unsual though that parliament went so far as to repeal entire probelmatic acts and provisions, they would normally have just left a clause in the end saying that the this act takes precedence over any prior conflicting legislation, similar to what they did with the abortion act. still, its a sign of how much parliament wanted this legislation to suceed.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And it's always a good idea to clean up musty old laws that have no bearing anymore. These things can pop up and bite people on the ass when least expected. Old prejudices should NOT be encoded in law after society has changed.
"I promise not to try not to fuck with your mind/ I promise not to mind if you go your way and i go mine/promise not to lie if i'm looking you right in your eye/promise not to try not to let you down."
--Eve6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And incidentally, how could anyone with a last name like "Paisley" not support gay rights? LOL
"I promise not to try not to fuck with your mind/ I promise not to mind if you go your way and i go mine/promise not to lie if i'm looking you right in your eye/promise not to try not to let you down."
--Eve6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Lords have voted to accept the civil partnership bill by a majority of 251 votes to 136. we'll have legal gay marriage in the UK next year when the biull comes into force!!!
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John_W
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: Wilmington NC
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 13
|
|
|
WOW! after the fight they had over the age of consent a while back I would have never thought that this could have happened so soon.  Congatulations to our friends in the UK.
I sometimes think that civilization is going backwards in the US.
-John
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Gay marriage is only a challenge when reliogion becomes involved. I cannto see how one can refuse partnr benefits to a committed partnership. I applaud the decision
Age of consent is a thorny issue. In part it is designed to make sure that the pure geometry works out ok. In other part it is a societal judgement on the need to keep children as children.
What it does not recognise is that children are sexual creatures.
the issue is to ensure that children are not introduced to sex for the gratification of adults. http://iomfats.org/resources/ageofconsent.html fomrs part of my thought process here.
In the UK we have the Sexual Offences Act 2004. It appears to criminalise kids playing doctors and nurses  I have digressed
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
UK and gay Marriage 
Re: LORDS BACK MARRIAGE 
