Couple Denied Civil Partnership for B...

Couple Denied Civil Partnership for Being Straight

There are 48 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Nov 25, 2009, titled Couple Denied Civil Partnership for Being Straight. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle want to have the perfect civil union. The problem? Well, in Great Britain, civil unions, or civil partnerships, are restricted to only gay and lesbian couples. As a heterosexual couple, Freeman and Doyle cannot get a civil partnership, but can get married. It is, according to their reasoning, discriminatory.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Even an Ice Princess can melt.”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#56 Dec 1, 2009
I do apologize for the generalizations inquisitarian. And yes we did fight for our rights here with little help from the lgb community. Also dont punish other transexuals for my stupidity in the feelings that i let slip.

“STFU”

Since: May 07

Atlanta, GA

#57 Dec 1, 2009
Roisia wrote:
<quoted text>
But to say we want equality and throw other groups under the buss like fuzi wants to do is wrong.
Stop making up lies about me. I've never written any such thing, you only again confirm you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about. If you cannot understand an issue, it would be best for you to remain silent.

“Even an Ice Princess can melt.”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#58 Dec 1, 2009
fuzi wrote:
<quoted text>Stop making up lies about me. I've never written any such thing, you only again confirm you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about. If you cannot understand an issue, it would be best for you to remain silent.
Fine this ignorant bitch will shut the f*ck up. You feel free to through straight supporters under the buss since you don't think they deserve marriage rights. I'll go be a stupid ignorant bitch somewhere else. Have a good life.

Since: Jan 07

Ann Arbor, MI

#59 Dec 1, 2009
Roisia wrote:
I do apologize for the generalizations inquisitarian. And yes we did fight for our rights here with little help from the lgb community. Also dont punish other transexuals for my stupidity in the feelings that i let slip.
Apology accepted. Sorry if I was overly harsh. You're certainly entitled to your feelings given your experiences. But if more people would learn to temper the feelings that arise from such anecdotal experiences with logic and reason, maybe LGBTs wouldn't be second-class citizens.

Bottom line, if you paint yourself as being oppressed by the very people you're trying to persuade to be your allies, you won't make many.

(that, and I have a real low tolerance for trying to use guilt to manipulate others)

Since: Jan 07

Ann Arbor, MI

#60 Dec 1, 2009
fuzi wrote:
<quoted text>Being a wuss and letting the world walk all over us hasn't worked so well so far
Being abrasive with a "take no prisoners" attitude won't, either. There's a middleground between the two, but militants seem to enjoy characterizing anyone who believes in taking a firm stand without the incendiary rhetoric to be a "wuss".
fuzi wrote:
People like you are why things remain as they are.
You're not exactly helping, either.
fuzi wrote:
We, as a united group, need to stop being such a f*cking pushover and grow a set and demand equality. Stop begging! DEMAND!
One can be insistent about one's equality without alienating potential allies by trying to sound tough.

Since: Jan 07

Ann Arbor, MI

#61 Dec 1, 2009
fuzi wrote:
<quoted text>You don't make sense, unless you actually like being a second-class citizen. I *DO* support the couple's efforts because it does demonstrate the inequality present in the current system. What I do NOT support is actually giving the couple the civil union. That would actually defeat the purpose of their effort.
I see your point, still...

Absent the political context, would you support people having equal access to civil unions, regardless of the gender of the parties? Supposing a heterosexual couple, for whatever reason, disdains the term marriage (maybe because they associate it with religion), and would instead prefer the term "civil union".

It's not a question of whether or not same-sex couples are treated equally, but whether it makes any sense to exclude opposite-sex couples from having a civil union, versus a marriage.

Now, having said that, I fully take your point that granting this specific couple a civil union, when their real aim is to illustrate the inequality of preventing same-sex couples from marrying, would run counter to that goal. The question is: Does granting an opposite-sex couple a civil union run counter to the purpose of civil unions, not whether it runs counter to a specific couple's agenda.

That brings us to another question: Is the purpose of civil unions to grant legal parity, or is it to segregate same-sex and opposite-sex couples with regard to the law?

If the answer is the former, there should be no problem granting an opposite-sex couple a civil union.

Since it's arguably the latter, I think we should leave it to our opponents to try to explain their reasoning behind keeping an opposite-sex couple from attaining a civil union.

And, if their position ends up being that an opposite-sex couple should have access to their choice of either a marriage or civil unions, but same-sex couples should only be granted civil unions and not marriage, then they have some 'splainin' to do.
Gryph

United States

#62 Dec 1, 2009
I love the fact that they are doing what they can in their way to make the laws equal for all. Too bad they live in the U.K. as I think maybe they could do some good here.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#63 Dec 2, 2009
Joe in Novato wrote:
<quoted text>
thank you. great article - spells it all out...
You are welcome!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Society of Friends Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Six young Quakers join in building a movement f... (Sep '16) Sep '16 FSM 2
News Quakers hold conference on peace education for ... (Jun '16) Jun '16 little lamb 1
Philip Gulley and James Mulholland (May '07) May '16 LeTe2 23
News Conscientious Objection: 100 years on (Jan '16) Jan '16 little lamb 4
News Quakers object to funding for developing milita... (Dec '14) Dec '14 OwenEverett 1
News Daniel Boone and his family found freedom in th... (Dec '08) Jan '14 confused 15
News Huntsville's Quakers keep peaceful traditions o... (Jun '13) Jun '13 Nassar 1
More from around the web