House of Commons 'gay marriage' vote TODAY

[Keeland]

Ah, but there is no political 'Great'.

Ha. You have fallen into my intracrintly . . . intacantly . . . intrakritly . . . carefully laid trap.

Wiki. Who else?

The Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the political union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland with the Acts of Union 1707 on 1 May 1707 under Queen Anne.

[bankside]

Guys, watch this:

That's mostly right except for the bit about Wales being a co-equal and sovereign country within the UK, and he gets the Commonwealth a bit wrong as well. Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada, in our laws. She seems to travel a fair bit - can't stay away from the UK whenever M&S has a sale. And she runs other countries as somewhat of a hobby or something. But Canada does not have a "British Queen."

[andysayshi]

A celebration of Britain's legal recognition of gay marriage has become a debate over what Great Britain's name constitutes.

How very CE+P!

[mitchymo]

Ha. You have fallen into my intracrintly . . . intacantly . . . intrakritly . . . carefully laid trap.

Wiki. Who else?

That can be construed a trap my good sir, but not one of strength. Since the political 'great' which we speak has passed into history, as Britain had done before it. With the union of N.Ireland, a new name we have, and so 'Great Britain' now only fits geographically.
When referring to the UK, it is technically incorrect to name us anything other than the UK both politically and geographically speaking. Only if you wish to omit N.Ireland, does Great Britain become relevant geographically. And 'Britain' bears only the relevance in its being a reference to Great Britain (which is why you technically scorn the N.Irish whenever you refer to the country as such, instead of its name, the UK.). Thus if you omit Scotland from the union, you can no longer call it Britain as representative of 'Great', but still you can accept that with the contraction of the union, can come a contraction of the title, and so England and Wales, whether alone or with N.Ireland can be referred in its own relevant name, no longer short for, but actually, though different from history, Britain.

(rubs hands together, laughing an insidious laugh, wondering "perhaps the confusion of that post, will ward that Keeland from seeking to trip me and trap me evermore", followed by an hurumphff, or suchlike sound of quiet satisfaction before toddling off to bed)

[Keeland]

Since the political 'great' which we speak has passed into history, as Britain had done before it.

If you mean "great" in relation to Britain being a world power/industrial powerhouse/bully on the block, it never meant that, even when it was. It has always referred to England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland, later Northern Ireland/all the miscellaneous islands around the big one. Like greater London, greater Glasgow, greater Ayre (both sides of the street).

. . . followed by an hurumphff, or suchlike sound of quiet satisfaction before toddling off to bed)

He's so cute when he's asleep. A little angel.

[JockBoy87]

Guys, watch this:

Well, if only Anne Stanley got there first.

[JockBoy87]

Committee will meet Feb. 26-28

Their report is due March 12

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...uplesbill.html

[Rolyo85]

It really pisses me off that all those committees take so long... Especially on such a clear cut issue. I think half of it is acting important and taking their sweet time for no reason...

[JockBoy87]

It really pisses me off that all those committees take so long... Especially on such a clear cut issue. I think half of it is acting important and taking their sweet time for no reason...

I won't argue with that. This process is a pain. The UK process in particular is like pulling teeth. They have to vote before the bill gets a committee assignment, vote again, and then the same process in undemocratic Lords, which is only very rarely excluded. Lords can hold up a bill for a long time. I hope this gets done this year, although Deputy PM Nick Clegg is optimistic about getting it done by summer.

[frankfrank]

To add to the political/geographic/national controversy, the USPS (American post office) calls it "Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Rather cumbersome, actually.

To my thinking, where do Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Inner and Outer Hebrides (hi CG!!), and any other surrounding islands I can't name, fir in?

[bankside]

To add to the political/geographic/national controversy, the USPS (American post office) calls it "Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Rather cumbersome, actually.

To my thinking, where do Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Inner and Outer Hebrides (hi CG!!), and any other surrounding islands I can't name, fir in?

There is no controversy; the USPS is simply wrong.

[itsmejeff]

An 'anti-bill' MP stated, "It is not for government or anyone else to change the definition of marriage", yet seemingly it is ok for religious men and the church to define it in the first place.
Marriage is what it is, marriage is what it should be called.

To quote Jack Chick, "haw haw haw."

Marriage is thoroughly coated in religious bullshit. Limits on parties? Religion. Inability to limit duration? Religion.

Does no fault divorce without separation exist in the England? Why not?

The first goal should be to fix this stupid institution to make it compatible with modern society. After that, stupid people can seek to expand it.

The difference is not "the name", it is the INSTITUTION. Marriage has a weight to it that is undeniable and unchangeable - at least for the next few generations or so - and nothing short of it is "the same" on most levels, including perception by society. Settle for "civil union" and people will forever see you as different, "less than". Furthermore, NO civil union bill has ever gotten even remotely close to conveying the same benefits that marriage does. Even those that come close on a state level, could just as well not even exist as far as the Fed is concerned. And with the collapse of DOMA, same-sex marriage will be equal to heterosexual marriage.

It is far from "undeniable" and "unchangeable." A cursory reading of the history of marriage will show that.

Marriage has historically been an economic necessity. It allowed for families to obtain or retain wealth and power. As the market has changed, so too has marriage. The economic benefits are negligible. All of society works now. Few are dependent upon a spouse for their economic support.

You also falsely presume that the legal and social perspective of "heterosexual marriage" is correct. It clearly is not. Need to take a step back there, kiddo.

[JockBoy87]

To add to the political/geographic/national controversy, the USPS (American post office) calls it "Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Rather cumbersome, actually.

To my thinking, where do Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Inner and Outer Hebrides (hi CG!!), and any other surrounding islands I can't name, fir in?

They are self governing and not part of the UK, which by the way is indeed short for "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

[bankside]

which by the way is indeed short for "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

True - it is never styled "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" though; the "United Kingdom" bit is the relevant part. It would be as though the Royal Mail discovered a country called the States of America.

[JockBoy87]

True - it is never styled "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" though; the "United Kingdom" bit is the relevant part. It would be as though the Royal Mail discovered a country called the States of America.

Is that how the USPS styles names of countries? Or are they referring to regions?

[bankside]

Is that how the USPS styles names of countries? Or are they referring to regions?

The evidence suggests that USPS thinks there is a country called "Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
http://pe.usps.com/text/imm/ab_toc.htm
I would have expected a list of countries to include the United Kingdom. Or, to be formal, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They did manage to get Netherlands right.

[bankside]

Oh! I meant to protest that the Lords is not an undemocratic institution; its powers of review are temporary; the Commons can simply re-vote any bill defeated in the Lords to ensure its passage, and the Queen will grant Royal Assent. And really, Parliament could refer all bills to a vote by the owners of a chip stand in Teesside and this arrangement would get its democratic bona fides from the imprimatur of the elected Commons.

I'm wary of singling out the Lords as undemocratic when it is doing the job clearly assigned to it by the procedures of a perfectly democratic Parliament. It is the same kind of slur levelled against courts who exercise their powers of judicial review, obligated so to do by the parliament or constitution that granted the power in the first place. "Undemocratic judge-made law! Oh no!"

[JockBoy87]

The evidence suggests that USPS thinks there is a country called "Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
http://pe.usps.com/text/imm/ab_toc.htm
I would have expected a list of countries to include the United Kingdom. Or, to be formal, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They did manage to get Netherlands right.

I did not find a listing for Alaska and Alabama and Arizona and Arkansas and California and Colorado and Connecticut and Delaware and Florida and Georgia and ... Wyoming

[bankside]

I did not find a listing for Alaska and Alabama and Arizona and Arkansas and California and Colorado and Connecticut and Delaware and Florida and Georgia and ... Wyoming

LOL. Yes; the United States of (drumroll please…) Alaska and….

Okay: here, they're calling it "United Kingdom(Great Britain and Northern Ireland)."
http://pe.usps.com/text/imm/immctry.htm
All they need to do is pull the brackets and stick an "of" in it and they're done.

…but they also list Alberta (Canada). If they were being consistent, it would implyf they think the United Kingdom is a constituent part of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, just as Alberta is a constituent part of Canada, which is even weirder.

[JockBoy87]

Oh! I meant to protest that the Lords is not an undemocratic institution; its powers of review are temporary; the Commons can simply re-vote any bill defeated in the Lords to ensure its passage, and the Queen will grant Royal Assent.

This has only been done nine times.

I'm wary of singling out the Lords as undemocratic when it is doing the job clearly assigned to it by the procedures of a perfectly democratic Parliament.

A democratic legislature cannot relinquish lawmaking power to an undemocratic institution in a democratic state.

Commons in 1265 was democratic, but England was not a democracy because commons until the Modern Era assigned powers mainly to undemocratic institutions. I would go so far as to say Britain was not a democracy until the constitutional crisis in 1910.

It is the same kind of slur levelled against courts who exercise their powers of judicial review, obligated so to do by the parliament or constitution that granted the power in the first place. "Undemocratic judge-made law! Oh no!"

They are not the same. Judicial review is not legislation, and judges are always minimally erudite and scrutinized. Their offices are also never nominally religious or inherited.

[bankside]

The point is that the form of the institution or its composition does not matter when everything it does is either mandated by or subject to democratic control. The supremacy of the Commons ensures the democratic nature of the whole institution of Parliament. Any "undemocratic institution" can't make a claim to power in its own name, it's all subject to consent of the Commons. I also don't think anyone in the Lords or the Commons would disagree that the lower chamber has the power to overrule the defeat of a bill by the Lords, regardless of the number of times this has been done. Where a defeat by the Lords has stood, I would take that as evidence that the Commons has been persuaded by the Lords and changed its mind, not that it lacks the capacity to impose its will.

I concede the point about the Lords Spiritual, in part. Religious opinion has little value to a democratic government. But it is hard to conceive of the UK as a theocracy in anything but name.

[JockBoy87]

The point is that the form of the institution or its composition does not matter when everything it does is either mandated by or subject to democratic control. The supremacy of the Commons ensures the democratic nature of the whole institution of Parliament. Any "undemocratic institution" can't make a claim to power in its own name, it's all subject to consent of the Commons. I also don't think anyone in the Lords or the Commons would disagree that the lower chamber has the power to overrule the defeat of a bill by the Lords, regardless of the number of times this has been done. Where a defeat by the Lords has stood, I would take that as evidence that the Commons has been persuaded by the Lords and changed its mind, not that it lacks the capacity to impose its will.

I concede the point about the Lords Spiritual, in part. Religious opinion has little value to a democratic government. But it is hard to conceive of the UK as a theocracy in anything but name.

It is a matter of fact that democratic institutions cannot surrender their legislative power in a democracy.

If is also not true that, in a democracy, democratic institutions can have a tradition of not exercising supremacy over undemocratic institutions. If that we're true than any dictatorship could be a democracy so long as a democratic legislature submitted to it.

Therefore, if the Commons shirks its responsibility to Lords, it cannot be democratic.

[unloadonme]

It really pisses me off that all those committees take so long... Especially on such a clear cut issue. I think half of it is acting important and taking their sweet time for no reason...

Why should that piss you off? It's not as if you're British or anything. There's a process to be followed and little doubt about the outcome.

[unloadonme]

To my thinking, where do Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Inner and Outer Hebrides (hi CG!!), and any other surrounding islands I can't name, fit in?

They are self governing and not part of the UK, which by the way is indeed short for "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

On a point of pedantry, the Inner and Outer Hebrides, whilst obviously not part of the mainland, are not self-governing. They're an integral part of Scotland. In the same way Anglesey is part of Wales and the Isle of Wight part of England.

[rareboy]

Of course, in our Family, it was known as Great Yorkshire and the rest of the islands.

[bankside]

It is a matter of fact that democratic institutions cannot surrender their legislative power in a democracy.

We agree! And it is without dispute that a majority in the Commons can legislate unhindered on any subject. Their decision to do so or not when a government bill is defeated in the Lords is entirely a matter (quite properly) of political considerations. There is no question of capacity; there is simply no surrender of any power.

If is also not true that, in a democracy, democratic institutions can have a tradition of not exercising supremacy over undemocratic institutions. If that we're true than any dictatorship could be a democracy so long as a democratic legislature submitted to it.

Therefore, if the Commons shirks its responsibility to Lords, it cannot be democratic.

Okay let's compare intraparliamentary balance of power with the balance between parliament and the crown.

First, Royal Prerogative - all those powers still held by the Crown which may be exercised without any Parliamentary consent. It is said that the Queen reigns but does not rule. Is Royal Prerogative the exception? No. Defining the extent of Royal Prerogative is the task of the courts. The powers can be claimed by Parliament at any time, and Royal Prerogative has been trimmed over the years. The remaining powers are exercised almost exclusively on the advice of the government of the day. About the only thing left that the Queen can do without any input or advice is appoint people to the Order of Merit and maybe change a few people's titles within the royal family.

If Queen Elizabeth were to appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace and attempt to proclaim a new law of her own invention by the use of prerogative powers, the Government would accept her abdication before the sun set the same day, if the UK did not become a republic outright; she has an unexercised power which is spent.

In contrast, no one would dispute that any exercise by the Commons of its power to override the Lords is legitimate, now and for the foreseeable future.

[Quacktastic]

I was going to mention that the Lords can't veto the bill - they are limited by the Parliament Acts - but others have mentioned this so I won't bother.

Personally, I still view it as making very little difference to me. The UK civil partnerships was perfectly satisfactory as far as I am concerned, cynical as I am I can't help but feel this bill is a project to detoxify the Tory party (apparently unsuccessfully, considering the backbenches that have come out of the woodwork).

The unfortunate implications of the difference in law depending on the genders of people was a problem, and I'm glad that's being solved, however in the end it isn't that important. I'm more worried about, I don't know, youth unemployment.

[JockBoy87]

I was going to mention that the Lords can't veto the bill - they are limited by the Parliament Acts - but others have mentioned this so I won't bother.

Personally, I still view it as making very little difference to me. The UK civil partnerships was perfectly satisfactory as far as I am concerned, cynical as I am I can't help but feel this bill is a project to detoxify the Tory party (apparently unsuccessfully, considering the backbenches that have come out of the woodwork).

The unfortunate implications of the difference in law depending on the genders of people was a problem, and I'm glad that's being solved, however in the end it isn't that important. I'm more worried about, I don't know, youth unemployment.

A lot of Britons are aware that once France passes equal marriage, the UK will be the last major country in Western Europe without it.

In the US at least we are keenly aware from historical example the impact of separate institutions for different people. Your relationship will never have equal dignity without having the same access to relationship status.

Your 'partnership' is also good only in the UK and not many other places, opposed to a marriage.

[Quacktastic]

In the US at least we are keenly aware from historical example the impact of separate institutions for different people. Your relationship will never have equal dignity without having the same access to relationship status.

You do have a point. I guess my disinterest in it based on my opposition to relationships needing some kind of recognition from the state - people may need rights over each other's affairs, but state institutions should not define people's relationships for them. The Government's position on gay marriage does not change my sexual or romantic needs and desires.

It isn't a bad bill, I just don't like marriage at all I guess.

[JockBoy87]

You do have a point. I guess my disinterest in it based on my opposition to relationships needing some kind of recognition from the state - people may need rights over each other's affairs, but state institutions should not define people's relationships for them. The Government's position on gay marriage does not change my sexual or romantic needs and desires.

It isn't a bad bill, I just don't like marriage at all I guess.

The idea of solidarity is that you stand with your fellow LGBTs who do want the legal incidents and dignity of marriage, even if that is not something you want yourself.

I am not married either, and will not for many years at the least.

[Sausy]

The idea of solidarity is that you stand with your fellow LGBTs who do want the legal incidents and dignity of marriage, even if that is not something you want yourself.

I am not married either, and will not for many years at the least.

Yep, it's for the principle of the matter. Marriage isn't for everyone but for those who really feel it important to have that kind of legal recognition, same sex relationships should be equally recognized under the law as heterosexual ones. Commitment like that should be celebrated, even if it's not something someone believes necessary for their own fulfillment. It's important the law doesn't discriminate based on sexuality.

[unloadonme]

A lot of Britons are aware that once France passes equal marriage, the UK will be the last major country in Western Europe without it.

What about Germany, Italy and Greece?

[bankside]

I am surprised that a Yorkshireman would acknowledge Germany, Italy, and Greece as "major countries."

China, Russia, the United States, the UK of course, and that other country...you know...the other one that got a seat on the Security Council with the name we always forget...it's on the tip of my tongue...

[unloadonme]

I am surprised that a Yorkshireman would acknowledge Germany, Italy, and Greece as "major countries."

China, Russia, the United States, the UK of course, and that other country...you know...the other one that got a seat on the Security Council with the name we always forget...it's on the tip of my tongue...

You have a point of course, but JockBoy did refer specifically to major countries in Western Europe. China, Russia and the US are therefore not in point and JockBoy's already covered the F-word. Within Western Europe, I think Germany and Italy would generally be considered major, although I'll concede Greece!

[Quacktastic]

The idea of solidarity is that you stand with your fellow LGBTs who do want the legal incidents and dignity of marriage, even if that is not something you want yourself.

What dignity is present in marriage which is not present in a cohabitation? The idea that marriage has worth is socially constructed.

I do agree with the principle to the point that if it exists it should be available to all (that goes for civil unions too). I do agree what there shouldn't be an issue when moving between countries (though I think it always will be, with cultural and political differences). However, it is by no means a betrayal to disinterested in gay marriage for ideological reasons. I have the right to be indifferent.

[bankside]

What dignity is present in marriage which is not present in a cohabitation? The idea that marriage has worth is socially constructed.

I do agree with the principle to the point that if it exists it should be available to all (that goes for civil unions too). I do agree what there shouldn't be an issue when moving between countries (though I think it always will be, with cultural and political differences). However, it is by no means a betrayal to disinterested in gay marriage for ideological reasons. I have the right to be indifferent.

More than that, if there is such a thing as solidarity, you'd have the right to demand the rest of the gays stand with you in your opposition to marriage.

I can't say I'm universally sold on solidarity.

As far as your question about dignity, marriage is just recognition of a relationship already chosen by the couple and for which the couple wants to provide a standard set of legal protections.

The dignity comes from having that choice respected by the state. For the same reason, the government can't tell someine "You'll be better off," and then just assign them to a marriage. It really is the couple's idea, and the couiple's choice whether to extend the rights or not.

[JockBoy87]

More than that, if there is such a thing as solidarity, you'd have the right to demand the rest of the gays stand with you in your opposition to marriage.

To personally choose not to get married? Absolutely.

I can't say I'm universally sold on solidarity.

Not to worry, it is sold on you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes

You have a point of course, but JockBoy did refer specifically to major countries in Western Europe. China, Russia and the US are therefore not in point and JockBoy's already covered the F-word. Within Western Europe, I think Germany and Italy would generally be considered major, although I'll concede Greece!

Western Europe does not refer to all countries west of the Iron Curtain.

It is a geographic extreme including Iceland, Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, and the minor states.

[Quacktastic]

The dignity comes from having that choice respected by the state.

But why is that meaningful?

[JockBoy87]

What dignity is present in marriage which is not present in a cohabitation? The idea that marriage has worth is socially constructed.

Boyfriends and husbands are not accorded the same respect.

Just because you might say so does not mean that society or the law will.

[unloadonme]

Western Europe does not refer to all countries west of the Iron Curtain. It is a geographic extreme including Iceland, Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, and the minor states.

It's not as clear cut as that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe

Let's just say that there are some major European countries which have still to enact gay marriage legislation, including Germany and Italy.

[JockBoy87]

It's not as clear cut as that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe

Let's just say that there are some major European countries which have still to enact gay marriage legislation, including Germany and Italy.

There is no way I would count Germany or Italy as socially progressive as the UK, France, or Spain, which constitute a unique region of Europe not including the aforementioned.

[unloadonme]

There is no way I would count Germany or Italy as socially progressive as the UK, France, or Spain, which constitute a unique region of Europe not including the aforementioned.

I don't know whether it's possible to measure social progressiveness on some sort of scale or whether it's just based on an individual's perception. However, I'd say that in general the UK and Germany would be ahead of the other countries you mention mainly because of the conservative influence of the Roman Catholic church. In fact, Germany introduced what they call Registered Partnerships in 2001, four years before the equivalent Civil Partnerships were introduced in the UK.

[JockBoy87]

I don't know whether it's possible to measure social progressiveness on some sort of scale or whether it's just based on an individual's perception. However, I'd say that in general the UK and Germany would be ahead of the other countries you mention mainly because of the conservative influence of the Roman Catholic church. In fact, Germany introduced what they call Registered Partnerships in 2001, four years before the equivalent Civil Partnerships were introduced in the UK.

And poor gay Germans are still struggling for legal equality, nine years after UK countries passed civil partnerships. So did Danish gays, who only got equal marriage last year.

[Quacktastic]

Boyfriends and husbands are not accorded the same respect.

Just because you might say so does not mean that society or the law will.

I have acknowledged that the inclusive marriage is better vs heteronormative marriage, however you aren't addressing my questioning of marriage.

[JockBoy87]

I have acknowledged that the inclusive marriage is better vs heteronormative marriage, however you aren't addressing my questioning of marriage.

You mean is it arbitrary? Yes it is.

There is even evidence in France that opposite sex couples are favoring PACS unions instead of marriage, threatening to make it obsolete. Okay.

That's fine, as long as we have absolute equality, or I should say, equality of opportunity.

[unloadonme]

And poor gay Germans are still struggling for legal equality, nine years after UK countries passed civil partnerships. So did Danish gays, who only got equal marriage last year.

You misunderstand me. Germany has had gay civil partnerships since 2001 and the UK since 2005. I suggested that, if anything, that was evidence that Germany was more socially progressive than the UK.

It seems likely that the UK will legislate to move from civil partnerships to gay marriage before Germany does, so that may redress the balance. We've already established that you think that's a bigger deal than I do and hopefully we've agreed to differ on that.

[JockBoy87]

You misunderstand me. Germany has had gay civil partnerships since 2001 and the UK since 2005. I suggested that, if anything, that was evidence that Germany was more socially progressive than the UK.

It seems likely that the UK will legislate to move from civil partnerships to gay marriage before Germany does, so that may redress the balance. We've already established that you think that's a bigger deal than I do and hopefully we've agreed to differ on that.

The UK's is comprehensive, while Germany has yet to catch up.

[bankside]

But why is that meaningful?

Marriage is a package of legal protections and obligations for cohabiting couples, which should be optional and at the discretion of the couple to activate or not.

It is respect for this choice that is desirable. You might think it goes without saying that a couple can exercise that choice as long as the law allows them to marry. Not everywhere: in most of Canada, those legal protections and obligations will be incurred whether the couple wants their relationship recognised or not, which in my mind is only one step above randomly assigning people to be married for their own good. Most of the rights and obligations of marriage are imposed on couples who have been cohabiting long enough.

In Quebec, individuals remain single until they tell the government otherwise, which is far better in my view. It adds to the value of marriage that way, and also to the value of singleness, and respects the dignity of people's choice in the matter.

The question you also ask, why should anyone have access to this package of rights and obligations? Well, because it's an obvious set of arrangements. As a default, I want only one person making decisions about me if I am incapacitated. I want only one person to inherit my estate. I want all of those other aspects of married life. I'm not interested in signing contracts for each little quibbling thing. So if I choose to invite friends and family to witness the commitment I make to someone, I'd like all of those things to just automatically follow.

The issue with the exclusion of gays from marriage again comes back to choice: its ours to make.

[bankside]

To personally choose not to get married? Absolutely.



Not to worry, it is sold on you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes



Western Europe does not refer to all countries west of the Iron Curtain.

It is a geographic extreme including Iceland, Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, and the minor states.

My pont was that "solidarity" only implies unity of purpose, it does not help to determine which purpose is worth fighting for. Perhaps we should be united in proposing the abolition of marriage; we could show solidarity in that regard and still meet equality objectives. I think it's a daft idea but solidarnosc forever, brother….

[JockBoy87]

Marriage is a package of legal protections and obligations for cohabiting couples, which should be optional and at the discretion of the couple to activate or not.

It is respect for this choice that is desirable. You might think it goes without saying that a couple can exercise that choice as long as the law allows them to marry. Not everywhere: in most of Canada, those legal protections and obligations will be incurred whether the couple wants their relationship recognised or not, which in my mind is only one step above randomly assigning people to be married for their own good. Most of the rights and obligations of marriage are imposed on couples who have been cohabiting long enough.

In Quebec, individuals remain single until they tell the government otherwise, which is far better in my view. It adds to the value of marriage that way, and also to the value of singleness, and respects the dignity of people's choice in the matter.

You are speaking of common law marriage, which is very limited in comity around the world. Only eleven states in the US allow it.

The question you also ask, why should anyone have access to this package of rights and obligations? Well, because it's an obvious set of arrangements. As a default, I want only one person making decisions about me if I am incapacitated. I want only one person to inherit my estate. I want all of those other aspects of married life. I'm not interested in signing contracts for each little quibbling thing. So if I choose to invite friends and family to witness the commitment I make to someone, I'd like all of those things to just automatically follow.

You could not list the US federal and state benefits of marriage in one thread.

Family and medical leave is a major one, especially for couples who have kids.

There is also social security, death and bereavement, veterans, tax exemptions when a married couple runs a business together, tax free transfer of property, etc.

The greatest of them all has to be comity, that a marriage is universally recognized, whereas domestic partnerships are often not portable.