British judge says no to same sex marriage

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
A British judge has refused a request by a lesbian couple to have their same sex marriage, legal in Canada where it was performed, recognized in Britain. Britain does not recognize same sex marriages, but does provide for civil partnerships.


LONDON — A British judge on Monday dismissed a bid by two female professors to have their same-sex wedding in Canada recognized as a marriage in Britain.

Judge Mark Potter, head of Britain's High Court Family Division, dismissed the claim by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger that in defining their relationship as a civil partnership — rather than a marriage — Britain had violated their human rights.

Granting their request would risk undermining the time-honored institution of marriage, he said.

www.foxnews.com...


An interesting sidebar to the case it the court's ruling that the couple must pay for the government's legal costs, which are approximately 25,000 pounds.




posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
An interesting sidebar to the case it the court's ruling that the couple must pay for the government's legal costs, which are approximately 25,000 pounds.


I have often wondered why the gay community has not just asked to have the laws changed for tax issues and insurance issues rather then demanding they be called marriages as they so often do. Seems to be that would be a lot easier then trying to change traditional laws regarding marriages which in their case by definition they are not.

I really love the sidebar issue BTW and hope the case was handled by the likes of one of the activist groups lawyers i.e. ACLU. It is about time a judge socked the costs to them, that is what they do to our courts when they win. Now if more judges will just follow suit



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Morality cant be legislated . There shouldnt be any laws to prevent a same sex couple from getting married. Church groups and any other like minded groups of people should have the right refuse a marriage ceremony to a same sex couple. There is bound to be plently of open minded people/groups who could do what Church groups and others refuse to do.

Same sex marriage wont effect any existing marriages so why should anybody care what people do with there lives ?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Morality cant be legislated .


Really. What about theft, rape, battery, prostitution, drug abuse, murder, extortion, child abuse, etc.?

Are these not moral issues?

[edit on 2006/7/31 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Really. What about theft, rape, battery, prostitution, drug abuse, murder, extortion, child abuse, etc.

Are these not moral issues?


They are moral issues but at the end of the day the individual person decides what is right and wrong.
If Morality can be legislated why are there still cases of rape murder child abuse e.t.c ?
Laws in place reflect the majority of peoples individual choices not what the government says is right and wrong. In a sense my argument only works for western democracies.
GradyPhilpott I welcome any future thoughts you have on the matter I dont think that there are any right or wrong answers.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I think the govt should just recognize civil unions whether they are marriages by definition or not. All unions should have the same benefits, hetero or homo. I think that would remove the whole getting in the way of other people's traditional values?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
I think the govt should just recognize civil unions whether they are marriages by definition or not. All unions should have the same benefits, hetero or homo.

That has been tried and rejected by gay rights groups. They want the full recognition of being legally married.

www.firstamendmentcenter.org...



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
All unions should have the same benefits, hetero or homo.


I have come to agree with this position. My husband and I would have a civil union same as gay people. Churches can have the word marriage.

"Legal marriage" would become a term of the past. If everyone had to have a civil union to be legal, then people could get "married" in the church (or wherever they wanted) and it would have no legal meaning, I would go for that in a heartbeat.

But on subject, Britain has every right not to recognize Canada's marriage laws. From state to state here in the US, there's no obligation to recognize another state's marriage laws, so why should it be different from country to country?

[edit on 1-8-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   


Really. What about theft, rape, battery, prostitution, drug abuse, murder, extortion, child abuse, etc.?



Now why the hell would you compare that stuff with gay marriage? Those things harm people (except the drug abuse and prostitution, really that is harming yourself). So no, child abuse and rape are not moral issues such as gay marriage.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
I think the govt should just recognize civil unions whether they are marriages by definition or not. All unions should have the same benefits, hetero or homo. I think that would remove the whole getting in the way of other people's traditional values?


I am in full agreement here. Everyone get a civil union, leave marriage to the churches. That would solve a lot of problems, imo. That way the church can still have marriages, but they don't interfere with legal issues.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Gay marriage is not legal here?

I thought it was. Remember Elton John and his boyfriend's wedding? The whole town supported it and were in on it.

Learn something new every day.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join