[Mystique]

First off, I've issues with the thread title.
(Pardon my random feminist rant)
If being 'gay' wasn't so heavily associated with male homosexuality only, then I'd not laugh at the irony of 'equal rights' aspect of this thread.
So we're only looking into male/male unions, not female/female, right? *amused*

Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom
(Or as officially passed ‘civil partnerships’, of which many homosexual people I’ve met when I was working at the Library, usually refer to their other half as ‘my partner’, which is a nice, clear definition which saves embarrassment for both sides under the assumption that they’re heterosexual).
I dunno, maybe cause the UK have this nice neutrality to it, that it doesn't make me twitch when I hear 'gay marriage, gay marriage', unless we've finally got to calling women 'gay' too?

‘Eeeew, she’s so gay, that's nasty~~’
Instead of:
‘Lesbian? Aw hot!’
(Equality, really? How about trying to adjust the mindsets of being ‘gay’ (negative) vs being ‘lesbian’ (positive) first before going elsewhere.)
That’s just me, I dunno if anyone has gripe with this, especially with recent internet culture, but I can’t help but twitch and come out with this face. -->

Anyways, digressing, lol.

As for my opinion, the US has been touch and go with this but someone will need to define the 'terms' of it all in a state/religious way for me under American beliefs.
I'll throw in the UK's two pence which coincides with my view and as a Catholic.

Same-sex marriage is not legal in the United Kingdom. Marriage laws vary in the countries of the UK however all of them currently prohibit marriages between same-sex couples.

Since 2005 same-sex couples are allowed to enter into civil partnerships, a separate union which provides the legal consequences of marriage.

The current Labour government has stated that they have no plans to legalise same-sex marriage. It is however supported by the Liberal Democrats and Green Party of England and Wales. There is also a campaign in Scotland to allow same-sex couples to marry in the country.

By 'legal consequences of marriage', the laws allow them the same benefits and rights as those who are married between a man and woman.

Spoiler:

* For the purposes of capital gains tax, a married couple/civil partners can claim private residence relief for only one dwelling, even if they live apart.
* Married/Civil partners can possess joint property without needing to agree a contract.
* In case of accident or illness of one spouse, the other is considered as next of kin.
* A spouse of a British citizen is entitled to a residence permit.
* A spouse may not be compelled by a criminal court to disclose private communications with their spouse.
* When a married couple/civil partners separate, the courts have wide powers to divide their property and may set aside prenuptial agreements.
* Wills are revoked on marriage or formation of a civil partnership (unless made in contemplation of marriage/formation of a civil partnership) . Similarly, a divorced former spouse cannot benefit from a will made before divorce/dissolution.
* No inheritance tax is payable on an estate inherited by the surviving spouse in a marriage/civil partnership.
* The surviving spouse inherits part or all of the estate of a spouse who dies intestate. The exact rules for intestacy are different in the countries of the UK. In England and Wales, if there are children, the survivor inherits the first £125,000 plus personal possessions plus a life interest in half the remainder; if there are no children but the deceased has surviving parents or siblings, the surviving spouse inherits the first £200,000 plus personal possessions plus half the remainder; otherwise the survivor inherits the whole estate.
* The surviving spouse is paid a proportion of their deceased spouse's pension.

As I see it, that is a big step to the general British public acting and acknowledging the married status too of same sex couples as well as the simple fact that ‘yes’, homos do take relationships as seriously as hetreos, they do work hard to maintain their relationship for many years and to treat each other with love and respect.
It’s a massive acknowledgement since it involves banks, courts, immigration, insurance companies and hospitals having to treat their clients the exact same under the married status, be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
For that, I was kinda happy for the UK to establish back in '05 and I'm sure Mr Sir Elton John was very happy about it too.
(That was a pretty A list lavish affair)

In that sense of 'marriage' under a civil union which doesn't invoke any religious aspects into the ceremony and has the laws and people acknowledge it, I happily endorse.

For Chey, this lil nugget may prove interesting, I dunno the current take America has on that though.

Spoiler for Polygamy marriages:

Polygamy is illegal in the United Kingdom, and polygamous marriages may not be performed. However, if the marriage took place in a foreign country that allows polygamous marriages (such as Saudi Arabia) then British law recognizes the union as valid for the purposes of welfare benefits. This decision was not made without controversy, and there have been protests as well as numerous pleas from officials to ban any form of recognition of polygamous unions in the United Kingdom

So where does it become an 'issue' for me?
When we have same sex couples wanting a church wedding.


I won't even limit that to homosexual relationships, the same applies with hetreo as well. If you've no belief in a faith, why try to imitate aspects of it because it seems 'nice' or just because “well why do they get to wear such a beautiful dress?”
(Here's looking at you Japan)
Many people who don't have particular belief but want to get married (as in be officially recognised by law under the marriage status) go to the registry office for something private and small and will discard the typical frills (such as the white dress which has a significance).
But, to marry outside of the church was also something that had to be fought for, for quite some time for the law to recognise it as 'official'.
Since the church doesn't condone divorces, to get around that issue, civil ceremonies allow people to remarry, which millions of hetreo people do (and even some women do go as far as to wear 'ivory' on their day, which makes me smile) - but you ain't hearing hetero peeps rallying going:
'I want rights to re marry in the church more than once!'
The use of the 'ring' is another feature that has deep meaning in a religious note, however I can understand since its the only outward sign we have to show others our relationship status that it applies to anyone, whether they believe or not.

As someone mentioned before the term of 'marriage' is even sketchy, so I'm not sure if the LGBT were protesting for civil rights as their fellow hetro lot in the same way as the UK has done 4 years ago or if they want the church aspect of it as well at the protest that Chey participated in.
(Clarify for me will ya when you read this)

The reasons I have issues with the religious link in is simply because it forces those who are actively practicing or fully believe to have to break certain foundations to accommodate those outside of the religion.
That doesn't become a compromise then, it becomes an imposition.
To many, marriage is just a piece of paper and a road straight to hell.
(in the sense of ball and chain)
To me, it's an eternal promise.

A promise (with regards to the conventional, biological sense) between a man and woman to each other and to God (or a higher being to spread the net to other religions) to love, care, treasure each other, support each other, through the good and bad (yes the vows mean more to me than just ramble always spouted on romcom Hollywood movies), to screw like bunnies and spout kids and raise them with love, good values and morals of which divorce is something that has serious consequences, not only on your family but also to your faith and your belief.
(Of course we can thank Henry VIII for getting around that and planting the seed to hundreds of years of wars and confusion cause of his selfish decision)

And naturally until recently (that being the last 40 years or so), the laws and rights reflected that via 'joint mortgages', 'joint bank accounts', identifying 'next of kin' and so on.
For the laws to reflect the change and allow same-sex couples those lifestyle rights is perfectly fine as those laws were made by the government (by man within the last 200 years or so for US) to support a couple who have been recognised under the status of 'married'.
For a church wedding, or a wedding with a religious practictioner such as a priest, is to ask for God's blessing on top of it all.

Q: So what if you're homosexual and both people believe in God?
A: In the sense of Christianity, since it's branched off and diluted itself to hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a branch that disregards that aspect as a sin, otherwise most peeps won't feel comfy with it (even touching Islam beliefs too) since it doesn't follow the teachings of what we believe in. My brand is Catholism, and we're a stuffy bunch so go figure. For those in that paradox, it'll probably be a painful conflict to be caught up in sadly...
Anyways, to resume;

Since we have 24hr ones in Las Vegas (which saddens it for me to be honest), if America can 'devalue' the practice of this ceremony to something as tacky as that, which I dare hazard to say doesn't involve vows with religious references per se, just a witness and sign a contract which then the state 'recognises', then damn straight to same-sex couples also having the right to say:

"Baby, let's go to Vegas and get married”, as in let’s make this official between us and have that legally recognised.

But to ask for the blessing of the church or a faith under their own practice which doesn't condone it, if by 'marriage' they're asking for that, then sorry 'no'.
People don't like it when believers "force" their beliefs onto others who don't quite agree or share the same sentiment as it goes against who you are as a person and what you belief in life, then don't demand the same from your end.
That seems kinda selfish in a sense, having your cake and eating it too, rather than stepping back some as part of an active act of compromise as society ever changes.

And be it religion, opinion, lifestyle or anything else, if you have two opposing elements try to enforce an action that has to force the other, there will be turmoil as you're challenging their existence and way of life and not too many humans are happy to be so flexible.

I know I won’t get time to follow up in this thread when it hits weekday again, so if there is something specific you wanna ask me of which I’ve not replied to, send a note on my profile wall with question in tow, (of which I’ll feel more guilty about when I don’t reply to it)

In 50 years though, homosexuals have come a long way in the West (well when we think about it, the world has grown at an insane rate in terms of globalaisation, laws and intergration)
Intereting timeline for anyone curious to see how it progressed in the UK since the 50's