It doesn't quite give the same rights. There are some issues around pensions I believe that do not apply to civil partnerships.
No, it gives
exactly the same rights and responsibilities. It is explicitly defined that way.
The issue with pensions is that it is not generally allowed for a law to apply retroactively. There are extremely good reasons for that. For example, the increase in restrictions of ownership of weapons in the 1990s. Would you support that law being applied retroactively and used to convict people for owning weapons in the 1970s that were legal then but had been made illegal in the 1990s increase in restrictions, even though they no longer owned the weapons?
In the case of civil partnerships and pensions, the law was applied retroactively to some extent, but not absolutely. So, for example, a person who has been in a homosexual relationship for 25 years and has been paying into a private pension for 25 years and who has a widow's pension provision in that pension can't force their pension scheme to treat them as having been in a civil partnership for 25 years (i.e. long before the law was passed) for the purposes of calculating the pension due to their partner.
That aside the fact that we are now in a situation of "seperate but equal" which I personally do not feel is healthy. Would you accept a special type of marriage just for black people?
I'd rather have rights than a fight. I don't care if the forms call it "marriage", "civil partnership" or "wibblyboodeedoo". People who will accept homosexual marriages call them marriages regardless of what the form says. People who won't accept them won't call them marriages regardless of what the form says. So it doesn't matter in any way at all what the form says.
"seperate but equal" refers to situations that are
not really equal, i.e. it's an excuse. That's not the case in this situation.
I don't think anyone but the most ardent of gay rights activists want to force religious institutions to preside over gay marriages but don't you think it would be nice if they could choose to do so?
No. As long as marriage has any legal and political status, it should be covered by law and politics, i.e. government departments. I certainly don't think it's nice to have religious institutions with that power.
Giving a religious blessing to a marriage is what should be where religious organisations are involved, not in law and politics. So I think it would be nice to remove them from heterosexual weddings too.
Thankfully we are not in the same position as the US but we are still allowing religious institutions to force their beliefs on to those that have no interest in them. Your reliogion is against homosexuality? Fine, dont marry someone of the same gender, however you shouldnt be allowed to tell others who they can and cannot marry.
I'm generally opposed to religion and would prefer it didn't exist, but even I wouldn't remove freedom of speech from it. I'd leave them free to tell me who I can and cannot marry and myself free to tell them they are morally wrong, irrational and harmful.
