Gay Marriage in Scotland from Sept 2014

[scottish-guy]

The Scottish Govt will introduce a Parliamentary Bill within the month, which will enable Gay Marriage.

Given the comparatively short legislative processes of the Scottish Parliament and given that there is a large Parliamentary majority in favour, the first Gay Marriage ceremonies are expected in September 2014 - which will coincide with the Independence Referendum on 18th September 2014

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22691285

[Nirish guy]

Much to Scottish guys delight I'm sure Scotland actually beat his estimate and just a few minutes ago passed the vote for Marriage Equality in Scotland 105 for / 18 against making Scotland the first Country in the UK to Legalise Gay marriage and the 17th in the world !! Go Scotland !!! :)

Looking forward to (most) of the rest of the UK following suit shortly and maybe even someday the DUP here in Northern Ireland will get with the programme and allow legislation to pass here also as they block it every time due to their "christian principals" i.e. their bitter and pure unfettered homophobia ! - however I'll not hold my breath on that one as I'm guessing it will take a European high court challenge to be won first thus allowing them the face saving excuse of having to be seen to follow european law when they EVENTUALLY implement it here also as they will surely have to do sometime, meanwhile well done Scotland for leading the way !


http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/vict ... land040214 (http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/victory-gay-marriage-now-legal-scotland040214)

As gay guys I think it's absolutely fabulous that we are perpetuating this form of discrimination - there's a First Class, Gold Standard relationship called "marriage" and then there's all you tossers who are Not Really Serious, merely Shacked Up, Second Class in the Relationship Stakes. Remind me, Scotland is a Nonconformist country isn't it, yet apparently now desperate that everyone conforms to a social norm?

[lego]

Great news for Scotland and the Scots! :)

kommentariat, I'm not sure where you've spent the last few decades, but even among straight couples in Western countries, nowadays there's little pressure to get married. Divorce also comes easy for those who realize that they've made a mistake, or simply change their mind as time passes. The days of non-married couples being considered "second class" are therefor long gone. I think it's great to have as much choice as possible, and full equality. That doesn't mean I'm in a rush to get married, personally. But knowing that I could definitely is a great feeling.

On the contrary lego I'd have to ask not only where you have spent the last few decades but in which parallel universe you are living now. There are a number of young women - and it's always women I note particularly - living in long-term relationships in my workplace who talk to me about the pressures on them from friends and family to answer the question "But when are you getting married?" A quick Google for "pressure to get married" shows it still to be a recurring question. I'm sure that for men there is less pressure - after all, merely by shacking up with a woman they have proved they are not gay and they have the kudos from male society of having "escaped" marriage but still getting regular sex. But to make the assertions you do tells me that you're going around with your eyes shut and your ears blocked up. My own sister-in-law, a person who regards herself as a small-L liberal ne plus ultra got drunk at her daughter's recent wedding (after ten years of her being shacked-up and having a child) and uttered the words "thank god I can stop making excuses".

I should also point out that when conservative politicians argue in favour of "gay marriage" their argument is largely "because marriage promotes social stability" rather than "because it's fair" and I'd make a reasonable guess that many people who support gay marriage do it as much out of a sense of marriage being the gold standard for relationships as everyone should be treated equally. David Cameron, for example, is reported as saying (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/david-camerons-support-for-gay-marriage-2013-7) "ThereтАЩs something special about marriage. ItтАЩs not about religion. ItтАЩs not about morality. ItтАЩs about commitment. When you stand up there, in front of your friends and your family, in front of the world, whether itтАЩs in a church or anywhere else, what youтАЩre doing really means something". As opposed to all you moral layabouts who are merely shacked up.

[lego]

Oh, I didn't mean to say there's no pressure at all! Nagging questions and expectations, sure, they still exist in many if not most families in the West. But that's pretty much it, most people who choose to do so (!) can run afoul of these expectations without having to fear severe consequences. That's why many people now take the liberty to marry much later, or not at all, I think this trend is clear for all to see.

As for the lawmakers' motivation behind legalizing gay marriage, I'd agree, but I don't see it as a problem. Different people will have different reasons for getting married anyway, and they'll all be covered. So even if fairness and more choice were mere side effects, I'd still applaud the legislation.

[scottish-guy]

The Topic title I gave this originally was a little misleading - the measures which have now passed into law in Scotland are more correctly titled "Equal Marriage", and I think there's a big clue in the name.

I don't think it's about conforming or not conforming, it's surely about having the opportunity to have your (gay) relationship placed on the same legal/social standing as a heterosexual couple if you so choose. I do not forsee gay people ever being put under pressure to marry in the same way as (I agree) str8 people often are.

Have to agree with everything kommie has written. If marriage isnt the top of the heap for relationships what are Scotty and Lego saying? Yes there really is a two tier relationship structure? I cant see anything in what theyve written that disagrees with kommie rather it reinforce's what he wrote.

[lego]

Have to agree with everything kommie has written. If marriage isnt the top of the heap for relationships what are Scotty and Lego saying? Yes there really is a two tier relationship structure? I cant see anything in what theyve written that disagrees with kommie rather it reinforce's what he wrote.
Maybe I understood 'kommie' wrong, I was under the impression that he thinks that having these two tiers is bad, because it will create pressure on gays to marry(, too), once that option is available to them. I guess it always depends on what people have been through personally - I've never felt second-rate because of not being married, others were obviously less fortunate. So my personal take is that it's just another option.

From an equality point of view, at least it's relevant for those who'd like to take their Thai partner to their home country. Otherwise it might be close to impossible to get him a settlement visa. That, however, is a point where I felt some mild pressure from potential (and thereby disqualified, naturally) boyfriends already: Would I be willing to take him to my home country? For a holiday, sure! For settlement, hell no! I love living in Thailand and I wouldn't be willing to give that up. But that doesn't mean that I don't want the laws to allow it nevertheless.

[scottish-guy]

[youtube:59nck9jb]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2WERmmULLo[/youtube:59nck9jb]

Maybe I understood 'kommie' wrong, I was under the impression that he thinks that having these two tiers is bad, because it will create pressure on gays to marry(, too), once that option is available to them.Silly me I'd have thought that saying that having a two tier relationship system is a form of discrimination that as gays we shouldn't encourage, let alone support, would be enough to get the message across, but apparently not
:-s

[scottish-guy]

It's not necessarily a matter of failing to "get your message across" - we are not obliged to agree with it you know.

It's not necessarily a matter of failing to "get your message across" - we are not obliged to agree with it you know.No argument there. However that's not what I'm saying either - Lego simply missed the point altogether. As I believe that supporting a two-tier relationship model is discriminatory I will be opposing "gay marriage". Gays who wish to embrace discrimination are welcome to support it but please don't argue as many on the Left do that "the gay community" supports the idea and that somehow this particular form of discrimination results in an equitable outcome for all.

[lego]

See, that's where I think you (kommentariat) are the one missing the point: If there's a two tier system that's open to all, where's the discrimination? You and your partner are free to choose whether you merely want to shack up together or get married. The latter comes with more rights AND more responsibilities. There are two tiers because of that fact. Your choice, I really don't get what your problem is.

If you want just one tier (for everybody, I assume), how would that relationship look like? Have none of the privileges and obligations that come with marriage? Or all of them? Or something in between? And why would you deny having more choice to those who disagree with you? (Opposing gay marriage effectively means just that. Otherwise you could be in favor of it and simply make no use of it.)

What a legalist you are, lego. You're in a relationship if both (or in some cases all) of you say you are. If you want to have some sort of public ceremony, go ahead. Advanced jurisdictions like New Zealand have had this as their basic law for nearly twenty years. From an immigration perspective, you and your boy-/girl-friend are in a relationship if other people also say you are and you can provide some evidence of "mutual interdependence". The law's sole interest is in what happens when relationships break down - to common property and to children, if any.

New Zealand still retains marriage for the fuddy-duddys who believe that it's the real deal rather than all this dreadful shacking up nonsense. For that they have my undying contempt for keeping the sort of statute on the books that belongs to the era of child labour and other social ills Western society has moved well beyond. Shacking up also has the additional advantage for supporters of polyamory - there is no limit on number. As conservative opponents of gay marriage rightly (in my opinion) argue, if gender doesn't matter, why should number. Is it right that the law should tell a bisexual that they can't have both a male and female partner at the same time?

A two-tier anything is a form of discrimination. As homosexuals - a group that knows a lot about discrimination - should we be supporting two tiers? I won't.

[scottish-guy]

... Advanced jurisdictions like New Zealand have had this as their basic law for nearly twenty years. From an immigration perspective, you and your boy-/girl-friend are in a relationship if other people also say you are and you can provide some evidence of "mutual interdependence".....

Well, that puts the UK immigration policy into perspective - where even if you fulfil those criteria you're fucked if they say so.

Unless you work for a Tory Cabinet Minister of course..... then a visa is completely unnecessary - until you're found out 6 years later !!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26101442

Well, that puts the UK immigration policy into perspective - where even if you fulfil those criteria you're fucked if they say so.

Unless you work for a Tory Cabinet Minister of course..... then a visa is completely unnecessary - until you're found out 6 years later !!As a matter of interest what sort of visa was Peter Mandelson's Brazilian toy boy on? I've never thought of the UK as a socially advanced society. Ahead of America of course, but then who isn't?

[scottish-guy]

A Student Visa, I believe - which he strangely managed to remain on for 15 years!!

Willing to be corrected on those details but I believe they┬┤re correct

[Nirish guy]

Maybe the poor fella was just a slow learner ...... :-)