There's marriage and 'marriage'

On the front page of Metro (a morning free newspaper) I read about ‘Matt Lucas’ gay divorce’ and the article talked about his gay ‘marriage’ that lasted only 18 months.

 

While of course I feel sorry for the couple, what struck me was the use of gay to identify the divorce, and the marriage in inverted commas.

 

As you all probably know, same-sex unions in the UK are legal and bring exactly the same responsibilities and benefits of heterosexual marriages. But they have a different name: “civil partnerships” and the ceremonies mustn’t have any religious connotation.

A concession to the religious right, and in a way a small price to pay for equality in everything but the name.

 

Until recently, it never particularly bothered me. And I was happy to agree with those who said that giving a different name to the same-sex marriages made feel special.

But now I’m getting tired of seeing ‘gay marriage’ in the papers: it often tastes of mockery.

 

What is your opinion?

Does the use of a different name smack of discrimination? Or doesn’t it really matter because everything else is the same?

 

I’m very excited about the upcoming wedding of the lovely mh58and notdefined (wish we could there with them on Saturday). And very happy for all the Californians.

I was impressed to read in notdefined’s journal that the marriage licence form was amended from ‘man’ and ‘woman’ to ‘party A’ and ‘party B’.

One form and one name for everyone – now, that’s equality.