The Gay Marriages That AREN'T

I apologise for my absence. My other half has been very ill of late and I've been quite focussed on looking after him, rather than political commentary. However there's one subject that will always draw me back; marriage equality in the United Kingdom.

The Telegraph has got a set article on marriage equality that they fiddle about with every few weeks and rerelease. Last night they did it again under the title "Gay 'marriages' to be allowed in church"

This is their favourite "scare the Christians" stuff, but of course it's not even half as dramatic as they state.

This announcement will be about civil partnerships being allowed to use religious wording and to be held in places of religious worship.

I hope, pray, that the further idea they mention, of civil partnerships just having their name changed to "marriage", is one that exists only in the fevered minds of journalists. If this was a debate on semantics I would not be having it.

We must, MUST, be fighting for actual equality. For the same rights and privileges afforded to heterosexuals under marriage, under the same legislation. Anything else would just be ridiculous. If it was "renamed" would heterosexuals be allowed civil partnerships? Would transgendered people still need to dissolve a "same sex marriage" to get an "opposite sex marriage" and vice versa?? Would pension rights be equalised just because the name has changed? It would add yet another level of uncertainty and complexity to the issue rather than solve the problem clearly.

I await Lynne Featherstone's long awaited announcement regarding civil partnerships with trepidation.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist