Should Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson's legal Canadian marriage be recognised in the UK?

Question

A week or so ago Sir Mark Potter rejected the case of Mrs Kitzinger and Mrs Wilkinson, who married in Canada a few years ago. Had they been a man and a woman, British law would have recognised their marriage. In fact, theoretically, before the Civil Partnership Act came into force, their marriage would have been recognised because it was legal in Canada.

Potter said that it was discriminatory not to recognise their marriage, but it was justified as marriage is an instution protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, and it would be "to fly in the face of the Convention" to allow their marriage. However, politicans and judges from other countries have already interpreted this in favour of gay couples - Spain, The Netherlands and Belgium all have gay marriage. Clearly Sir Mark Potter is off the mark, so to speak, in departing from the advanced position of other European countries.

Optional extra question: should Sir Mark Potter be hung by his balls from barbed wire?

Answer 1

Yes, it should.

Invoking the European Convention on Human Rights as grounds for refusing recognition of a foreign same-sex marriage is mistaken, because, as you say, the countries in Europe which have full same-sex marriage are also signatories to the Convention and it does not prevail over or invalidate their own national law instituting such marriages.

I am myself married to my same-sex partner under Belgian law and, although it doesn't disadantage me in any material sense, it offends me on a matter of principle that this is only recognised as a civil partnership in the UK, because of the implication that it is a second-class status compared to a heterosexual marriage.

It's precisely because of this discrimination that the distinction should be removed.

Answer 2

We had some interesting debate over this one in the run up to Hull Pride last weekend - Celia and Sue life just a few miles away in Pocklington so it was particulary relevant here.

There is to a degree a gender split here - not universal - but generally more gay couples prefer the idea of a civil partnership - more lesbian couples seem to like the idea of marriage. So what is the difference and why the debate?

Essentially the difference between civil partnership and marriage is that a civil partnership is a written contract while a marriage is a verbal contract evidenced in writing. What this means in practice is that you cannot make a civil partnership by exchanging vows - the civil partner ship is not made until you sign the paper.

This blocks people from having a marriage style ceremony for a civil partnership, they can only bless the union if they chose to. Some religious organisations like the Methodists were keen to have civil partnership ceremoniies however that has also been blocked - because you cannot hold a civil partnership in a church as I understand it.

The issue here is that the religious groups campaigned strongly to "own" the term marriage - which is odd considering that in a register office marriage you cannot mention god without prior approval.

So the debate is all about "Do we want same sex relationships to be treated differently to heterosexual relationships?" Sue and Celia think that being treated differently is a breach of their human rights and they are probably right - however there are those who actualy like that same sex relationships are treated differently even though the legal effect is the same.

I personally don't like the language around civil partnerships but having been married once I am not sure I want to go back there. What is stupid is that where a trans woman is married to a woman and seeks to have her new gender recognised she must first get divorced and then create a civil partnership and that does have both a financial and emotional impact. I even know of one instance where a trans man and trans women were married before changing gender, but in order to have thier new genders recognised they had to first get divorced and then get remarried.

So in the light of those stupidities in the law I think we should be moving to a full same sex marriage status as other countries are and stop creating unnecessary differences.

Huggs
Rikki

Answer 3

Barbed wire is too good for him.. try electrically charged crocodile clips with little bags of acid which drip droplets of the contents onto his balls periodically over a week.... ^_^

In regards to the main question. British law is outdated. And although they have methods in place to change and update the law, it seems obvious that the happiness of the British public is not important. The Gay and Lesbian community is ever growing in Britain and one would think that the government and law making bodies would try to uphold favour amongst the people which affectively owns their asses.

"ARTICLE 12, European on Human Rights

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right."
(Found Here: http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.SecI )

"Men and women of marrigeble age" Are Celia and Sue not women of marriageable age? I think they are. Judges are just bending the words to suit what they think the sterotypical "gaybashing" public wants, and what the damned religious busybodies expect and think is right.

Also in discussing the "to fly in the face of the Convention" bullcrud.
Example of where the government would be percieved "to fly in the face of the convention" as so delicately put,

"ARTICLE 6

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
(also found here: http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.SecI)

Didn't the government pass a law stating they were able to detain "suspected terrorists" indefinately without trial? Yes they may have changed this now, but that doesn't get rid of the face that they were in direct breach of the convention for many months.

Is it just me or does this country decide which parts of the convention they abide by?

Answer 4

I am not convinced by this at all. In the United Kingdom the definition of marriage is that of a union between a man and a woman. Full stop. Civil Partnerships were rightly made legal, to give same sex couples similar rights to married couples. Irrespective of what happens in other countries, nothing can change our definition of marriage, so I cannot see how the U.K. could possibly recognise a "marriage" of gay people in Canada. Just because you disagree with Sir Mark Potter you are throwing your rattle out of your pram, grow up!

Answer 5

I am too exhausted after reading your question, to bother to reply except I couldn't care less. Do you know you don't have to get married to protect your partner, just get a lawyer to draw up a contract protecting both your rights of property and money. No sweat, cuts out all the marriage shite XX

Answer 6

sir Mark is a product of his sick and twisted society. One that promises freedom and justice equally, yet discriminates when they find it convenient.
No, don't hang him. Make sure that people see what he is. The more we expose bacteria to sunlight, the faster it dies.
Same thing here. The more we expose this disgusting attitude, the faster it will dissapear.

Answer 7

Yes and - optional extra: No, but he should be taken out of his soiled nappies and spanked for being such a naughty, naughty boy.

Answer 8

Any other marriage from another country would be recognized so why not this one? Yes, it should be.

Answer 9

yes totally absolutely unequivocally beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Answer 10

Yes, it should after all we are living in the 21th Century.