Same-sex weddings are the "icing on the cake"

The Argus: Same-sex weddings are the "icing on the cake" Same-sex weddings are the "icing on the cake"

The first same-sex weddings can take place from March 29 next year – branded “the icing on the cake” by a Brighton couple.

Equalities minister Maria Miller announced yesterday that gay couples in England and Wales would be legally allowed to tie the knot.

The March date is earlier than anticipated, with the start date originally expected to be in the summer.

After 14 years as a couple, Roger Lewis and Keith Willmott-Goodall were one of the first couples in the country to register their intention to form a civil partnership at Brighton Town Hall eight years ago.

Mr Lewis, 65, said: “Well I think it’s a very good thing that people would be able to get married – it really is the icing on the cake.

“We have been fighting for this for some time and hopefully it’s going to prove very popular.

“However, it’s not something that Keith and I will be looking to do because the civil partnership was a big thing for us.

“But having said that, I would encourage as many couples as possible to do it.

“For years now, civil partners living together have been looking for a way to protect their house when they die or whatever and protect each other.

“This announcement has secured that and it’s just the icing on the cake.”

The Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act was passed in July and couples wishing to be among the first to marry can formally give notice of their intention to marry from March 13.

Ms Miller said: “Marriage is one of our most important institutions, and from March 29, 2014, it will be open to everyone, irrespective of whether they fall in love with someone of the same sex or opposite sex.

“This is just another step in the evolution of marriage and I know that many couples up and down the country will be hugely excited that they can now plan for their big day and demonstrate their love and commitment to each other by getting married.”

Ms Miller said she was “working hard” to ensure that couples wishing to convert civil partnerships into marriages – and married people wanting to change their legal gender while remaining married – will be able to do so before the end of next year.

Same-sex couples who married abroad under foreign law and are currently treated as civil partners will be recognised as being married in England and Wales from March 2014.

Those wishing to take part in same-sex weddings in some British consulates and armed forces bases overseas or in mili- tary chapels will have to wait until June.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:52am Wed 11 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

And not before time ...
And not before time ... mimseycal

12:14pm Wed 11 Dec 13

ajpj says...

Should have gone to a referendum, or at very least, let the Church decide, not some junior Minister with a non-job profile ..... appears to me that CAMERON will do anything to catch a few extra votes, as he has very quietly slipped this legislation in, whilst the World has been preoccupied by another event during the last few days. Many people will find that it is difficult to understand how the answer to a moral question, can be right one day & wrong the next, because of a government ministers say so.
Should have gone to a referendum, or at very least, let the Church decide, not some junior Minister with a non-job profile ..... appears to me that CAMERON will do anything to catch a few extra votes, as he has very quietly slipped this legislation in, whilst the World has been preoccupied by another event during the last few days. Many people will find that it is difficult to understand how the answer to a moral question, can be right one day & wrong the next, because of a government ministers say so. ajpj

12:27pm Wed 11 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

ajpj wrote:
Should have gone to a referendum, or at very least, let the Church decide, not some junior Minister with a non-job profile ..... appears to me that CAMERON will do anything to catch a few extra votes, as he has very quietly slipped this legislation in, whilst the World has been preoccupied by another event during the last few days. Many people will find that it is difficult to understand how the answer to a moral question, can be right one day & wrong the next, because of a government ministers say so.
It has nothing to do with the general public and even less with the church. It is purely a matter of legal full equality.
[quote][p][bold]ajpj[/bold] wrote: Should have gone to a referendum, or at very least, let the Church decide, not some junior Minister with a non-job profile ..... appears to me that CAMERON will do anything to catch a few extra votes, as he has very quietly slipped this legislation in, whilst the World has been preoccupied by another event during the last few days. Many people will find that it is difficult to understand how the answer to a moral question, can be right one day & wrong the next, because of a government ministers say so.[/p][/quote]It has nothing to do with the general public and even less with the church. It is purely a matter of legal full equality. mimseycal

1:06pm Wed 11 Dec 13

lovethegreens says...

Brilliant...its the one thing Cameron has done in government that he can be truly proud of.
Brilliant...its the one thing Cameron has done in government that he can be truly proud of. lovethegreens

1:07pm Wed 11 Dec 13

tykemison says...

Great news for equality, I wish them a long and loving future together.
Great news for equality, I wish them a long and loving future together. tykemison

2:30pm Wed 11 Dec 13

ajpj says...

mimseycal wrote:
ajpj wrote:
Should have gone to a referendum, or at very least, let the Church decide, not some junior Minister with a non-job profile ..... appears to me that CAMERON will do anything to catch a few extra votes, as he has very quietly slipped this legislation in, whilst the World has been preoccupied by another event during the last few days. Many people will find that it is difficult to understand how the answer to a moral question, can be right one day & wrong the next, because of a government ministers say so.
It has nothing to do with the general public and even less with the church. It is purely a matter of legal full equality.
"It has nothing to do with the general public and even less with the church. It is purely a matter of legal equality.."

I believe t that legal equality already exists in the form of civil partnership, if as you say, it has nothing to do with the Church, presumably they won't be criticised if they are unwilling to marry same sex couples .... which makes the exercise rather pointless ....
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ajpj[/bold] wrote: Should have gone to a referendum, or at very least, let the Church decide, not some junior Minister with a non-job profile ..... appears to me that CAMERON will do anything to catch a few extra votes, as he has very quietly slipped this legislation in, whilst the World has been preoccupied by another event during the last few days. Many people will find that it is difficult to understand how the answer to a moral question, can be right one day & wrong the next, because of a government ministers say so.[/p][/quote]It has nothing to do with the general public and even less with the church. It is purely a matter of legal full equality.[/p][/quote]"It has nothing to do with the general public and even less with the church. It is purely a matter of legal equality.." I believe t that legal equality already exists in the form of civil partnership, if as you say, it has nothing to do with the Church, presumably they won't be criticised if they are unwilling to marry same sex couples .... which makes the exercise rather pointless .... ajpj

3:37pm Wed 11 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

@ ajpj 2:30pm Wed 11 Dec 13

It depends on whether you feel that the church defines society or society, by the rule of law, defines society. Personally, I prefer the rule of law to the arbitrary rule of organized religion. At least the rule of law defines society for everyone and not just the chosen few who happen to agree with the specific tenets of a given church.
@ ajpj 2:30pm Wed 11 Dec 13 It depends on whether you feel that the church defines society or society, by the rule of law, defines society. Personally, I prefer the rule of law to the arbitrary rule of organized religion. At least the rule of law defines society for everyone and not just the chosen few who happen to agree with the specific tenets of a given church. mimseycal

4:43pm Wed 11 Dec 13

ajpj says...

I agree with what you say I'd like make it clear that I am not against "Same sex marriage" for the purpose of showing commitment, everyone has a right to be happy. I have taken some time now, to read the legislation & to be honest, i do not see how it can ever be blended into the "norm" of society in the same way as the C/partnership is now. The Cof E is banned from offering S/S marriage & no Church can offer it unless they specifically elect to do so,also the government has refused to re write legislation that covers the ending of a marriage I.e Adultery is not a reason for granting a divorce to S/S marriage couples plus other differences,also it will not be recognised in the majority of World Countries. This is poor legislation created in haste .It would have been far better to Bolster up CP legislation to take into account the difference between the two. However.
Lastly as a " serial Bridegroom" (Three Times) ... In my experience far better to have a partner that you want to stay with of your own volition, rather than have a piece of paper saying that you have to ....
I agree with what you say I'd like make it clear that I am not against "Same sex marriage" for the purpose of showing commitment, everyone has a right to be happy. I have taken some time now, to read the legislation & to be honest, i do not see how it can ever be blended into the "norm" of society in the same way as the C/partnership is now. The Cof E is banned from offering S/S marriage & no Church can offer it unless they specifically elect to do so,also the government has refused to re write legislation that covers the ending of a marriage I.e Adultery is not a reason for granting a divorce to S/S marriage couples plus other differences,also it will not be recognised in the majority of World Countries. This is poor legislation created in haste .It would have been far better to Bolster up CP legislation to take into account the difference between the two. However. Lastly as a " serial Bridegroom" (Three Times) ... In my experience far better to have a partner that you want to stay with of your own volition, rather than have a piece of paper saying that you have to .... ajpj

4:49pm Wed 11 Dec 13

mhaiti says...

ajpj wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
ajpj wrote: Should have gone to a referendum, or at very least, let the Church decide, not some junior Minister with a non-job profile ..... appears to me that CAMERON will do anything to catch a few extra votes, as he has very quietly slipped this legislation in, whilst the World has been preoccupied by another event during the last few days. Many people will find that it is difficult to understand how the answer to a moral question, can be right one day & wrong the next, because of a government ministers say so.
It has nothing to do with the general public and even less with the church. It is purely a matter of legal full equality.
"It has nothing to do with the general public and even less with the church. It is purely a matter of legal equality.." I believe t that legal equality already exists in the form of civil partnership, if as you say, it has nothing to do with the Church, presumably they won't be criticised if they are unwilling to marry same sex couples .... which makes the exercise rather pointless ....
I don't understand how the church has a monopoly on marriage? Marriage is an ancient institution that predates the church/christianity. Some churches will refuse to marry same sex couples, but then again some won't and that is the point - it (as is sexuality) is all about personal choice.

That the church has lost 'ownership' of an ancient institution that it never owned in the first place is something to be celebrated. The church is no longer the world's moral compass and that is a good thing. I fully respect an individual's right to faith in the same measure that I respect an individual's right to marry who they want.
[quote][p][bold]ajpj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ajpj[/bold] wrote: Should have gone to a referendum, or at very least, let the Church decide, not some junior Minister with a non-job profile ..... appears to me that CAMERON will do anything to catch a few extra votes, as he has very quietly slipped this legislation in, whilst the World has been preoccupied by another event during the last few days. Many people will find that it is difficult to understand how the answer to a moral question, can be right one day & wrong the next, because of a government ministers say so.[/p][/quote]It has nothing to do with the general public and even less with the church. It is purely a matter of legal full equality.[/p][/quote]"It has nothing to do with the general public and even less with the church. It is purely a matter of legal equality.." I believe t that legal equality already exists in the form of civil partnership, if as you say, it has nothing to do with the Church, presumably they won't be criticised if they are unwilling to marry same sex couples .... which makes the exercise rather pointless ....[/p][/quote]I don't understand how the church has a monopoly on marriage? Marriage is an ancient institution that predates the church/christianity. Some churches will refuse to marry same sex couples, but then again some won't and that is the point - it (as is sexuality) is all about personal choice. That the church has lost 'ownership' of an ancient institution that it never owned in the first place is something to be celebrated. The church is no longer the world's moral compass and that is a good thing. I fully respect an individual's right to faith in the same measure that I respect an individual's right to marry who they want. mhaiti

5:07pm Wed 11 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

ajpj wrote:
I agree with what you say I'd like make it clear that I am not against "Same sex marriage" for the purpose of showing commitment, everyone has a right to be happy. I have taken some time now, to read the legislation & to be honest, i do not see how it can ever be blended into the "norm" of society in the same way as the C/partnership is now. The Cof E is banned from offering S/S marriage & no Church can offer it unless they specifically elect to do so,also the government has refused to re write legislation that covers the ending of a marriage I.e Adultery is not a reason for granting a divorce to S/S marriage couples plus other differences,also it will not be recognised in the majority of World Countries. This is poor legislation created in haste .It would have been far better to Bolster up CP legislation to take into account the difference between the two. However.
Lastly as a " serial Bridegroom" (Three Times) ... In my experience far better to have a partner that you want to stay with of your own volition, rather than have a piece of paper saying that you have to ....
I agree with you regarding the piece of paper being but a piece of paper. However, different horses for different courses. To some individuals the legal status of marriage means something and it need not necessarily have anything to do with whether they stick with their partner or not.

As for the standing of churches or rather organised religion as a whole ... there was a time not too long ago that all of them were against the ordination of women. That is changing and I dare say so will this. And if this doesn't change they they will just become even more anachronistic then they already are.
[quote][p][bold]ajpj[/bold] wrote: I agree with what you say I'd like make it clear that I am not against "Same sex marriage" for the purpose of showing commitment, everyone has a right to be happy. I have taken some time now, to read the legislation & to be honest, i do not see how it can ever be blended into the "norm" of society in the same way as the C/partnership is now. The Cof E is banned from offering S/S marriage & no Church can offer it unless they specifically elect to do so,also the government has refused to re write legislation that covers the ending of a marriage I.e Adultery is not a reason for granting a divorce to S/S marriage couples plus other differences,also it will not be recognised in the majority of World Countries. This is poor legislation created in haste .It would have been far better to Bolster up CP legislation to take into account the difference between the two. However. Lastly as a " serial Bridegroom" (Three Times) ... In my experience far better to have a partner that you want to stay with of your own volition, rather than have a piece of paper saying that you have to ....[/p][/quote]I agree with you regarding the piece of paper being but a piece of paper. However, different horses for different courses. To some individuals the legal status of marriage means something and it need not necessarily have anything to do with whether they stick with their partner or not. As for the standing of churches or rather organised religion as a whole ... there was a time not too long ago that all of them were against the ordination of women. That is changing and I dare say so will this. And if this doesn't change they they will just become even more anachronistic then they already are. mimseycal

6:46pm Wed 11 Dec 13

bluemonday says...

if it's all about protecting each other why not just get a joint mortgage or write a will.
if it's all about protecting each other why not just get a joint mortgage or write a will. bluemonday

6:51pm Wed 11 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

bluemonday wrote:
if it's all about protecting each other why not just get a joint mortgage or write a will.
But that is just it, it isn't just about protecting each other. It is about having equal status, standing and ... possibly most important ... the equal right to chose how a relationship is formalised.
[quote][p][bold]bluemonday[/bold] wrote: if it's all about protecting each other why not just get a joint mortgage or write a will.[/p][/quote]But that is just it, it isn't just about protecting each other. It is about having equal status, standing and ... possibly most important ... the equal right to chose how a relationship is formalised. mimseycal

6:55pm Wed 11 Dec 13

KarenT says...

I think same-sex couples should have all the rights as opposite-sex couples. However I think religion is generally pretty stupid and I don't understand why anyone might want their union recognised by a stupid institution? Kind of like an elephant striving to be accepted by teenage mutant ninja turtles, sort of...
I think same-sex couples should have all the rights as opposite-sex couples. However I think religion is generally pretty stupid and I don't understand why anyone might want their union recognised by a stupid institution? Kind of like an elephant striving to be accepted by teenage mutant ninja turtles, sort of... KarenT

7:55pm Wed 11 Dec 13

KarenT says...

KarenT wrote:
I think same-sex couples should have all the rights as opposite-sex couples. However I think religion is generally pretty stupid and I don't understand why anyone might want their union recognised by a stupid institution? Kind of like an elephant striving to be accepted by teenage mutant ninja turtles, sort of...
Actually somehow I think a better analogy would be a 'dolphin' striving to be accepted by teenage mutant ninja turtles! :D
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: I think same-sex couples should have all the rights as opposite-sex couples. However I think religion is generally pretty stupid and I don't understand why anyone might want their union recognised by a stupid institution? Kind of like an elephant striving to be accepted by teenage mutant ninja turtles, sort of...[/p][/quote]Actually somehow I think a better analogy would be a 'dolphin' striving to be accepted by teenage mutant ninja turtles! :D KarenT

8:40pm Wed 11 Dec 13

All 9 of me says...

Is icing on the cake a euphemism ?
Is icing on the cake a euphemism ? All 9 of me

8:49pm Wed 11 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

All 9 of me wrote:
Is icing on the cake a euphemism ?
Nope! Its an idiom ... English 101 ;-)
[quote][p][bold]All 9 of me[/bold] wrote: Is icing on the cake a euphemism ?[/p][/quote]Nope! Its an idiom ... English 101 ;-) mimseycal

10:15pm Wed 11 Dec 13

PorkBoat says...

Looking forward to the first same sex marriage in a Mosque.
Looking forward to the first same sex marriage in a Mosque. PorkBoat

10:35pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Onasis096 says...

And why do people necessarily think that they have to 'tie the knot' in a church or the christian way before they are accepted as a 'lovely married couple'?I cant seem to understand why the gay communities want to marry the christian way.Why not marry in a mosque.a temple for buddhist or something...Is the the civil partnership thingi not enough? Do you need a confirmation from the church before you are recognised as a couple?
And why do people necessarily think that they have to 'tie the knot' in a church or the christian way before they are accepted as a 'lovely married couple'?I cant seem to understand why the gay communities want to marry the christian way.Why not marry in a mosque.a temple for buddhist or something...Is the the civil partnership thingi not enough? Do you need a confirmation from the church before you are recognised as a couple? Onasis096

12:33am Thu 12 Dec 13

whoee! says...

Onasis096 wrote:
And why do people necessarily think that they have to 'tie the knot' in a church or the christian way before they are accepted as a 'lovely married couple'?I cant seem to understand why the gay communities want to marry the christian way.Why not marry in a mosque.a temple for buddhist or something...Is the the civil partnership thingi not enough? Do you need a confirmation from the church before you are recognised as a couple?
I suppose its the "I'm the only gay in the village" syndrome lol hahahahaha
[quote][p][bold]Onasis096[/bold] wrote: And why do people necessarily think that they have to 'tie the knot' in a church or the christian way before they are accepted as a 'lovely married couple'?I cant seem to understand why the gay communities want to marry the christian way.Why not marry in a mosque.a temple for buddhist or something...Is the the civil partnership thingi not enough? Do you need a confirmation from the church before you are recognised as a couple?[/p][/quote]I suppose its the "I'm the only gay in the village" syndrome lol hahahahaha whoee!

6:04pm Thu 12 Dec 13

whoee! says...

Absolutely disgusting.Nobody's interested in this drivel
Absolutely disgusting.Nobody's interested in this drivel whoee!

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree