The ArgusGay marriage proposals backed by Brighton and Hove council (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Gay marriage proposals backed by Brighton and Hove council

Gay marriage proposals have been unanimously backed by politicians in Brighton and Hove.

The Government’s Equalities Office began a 12-week consultation in April and it closed yesterday.

A letter on behalf of all 54 Brighton and Hove city councillors has been sent to Whitehall supporting plans to let people “convert” current civil partnerships into civil marriage.

It also includes allowing same sex couples to have a civil marriage in register offices or other approved premises.

However, under Government plans there will be no change to religious marriages.

Council leader Jason Kitcat said: “On behalf of our city’s large LGBT community I hope this will deliver much needed change while allowing existing faiths and traditions to continue unaffected.”

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:35am Fri 15 Jun 12

RottingdeanRant says...

I would much prefer that OUR councillors asked us before making such statements. I feel that 'marriage' should remain as is as I consider that it has a specific meaning for hetrosexual couples. This is not from a religious perspective as I'm a atheist but purely from my belief about what marriage is?
I would much prefer that OUR councillors asked us before making such statements. I feel that 'marriage' should remain as is as I consider that it has a specific meaning for hetrosexual couples. This is not from a religious perspective as I'm a atheist but purely from my belief about what marriage is? RottingdeanRant
  • Score: 0

8:50am Fri 15 Jun 12

Carlas mum says...

What a surprise!
What a surprise! Carlas mum
  • Score: 0

9:01am Fri 15 Jun 12

inadaptado says...

RottingdeanRant wrote:
I would much prefer that OUR councillors asked us before making such statements. I feel that 'marriage' should remain as is as I consider that it has a specific meaning for hetrosexual couples. This is not from a religious perspective as I'm a atheist but purely from my belief about what marriage is?
Completely agree. Our councillors should know that no concept has ever changed in the course of history, and all words have the same meaning they were created with.

Oh, wait...
[quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: I would much prefer that OUR councillors asked us before making such statements. I feel that 'marriage' should remain as is as I consider that it has a specific meaning for hetrosexual couples. This is not from a religious perspective as I'm a atheist but purely from my belief about what marriage is?[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Our councillors should know that no concept has ever changed in the course of history, and all words have the same meaning they were created with. Oh, wait... inadaptado
  • Score: 0

9:29am Fri 15 Jun 12

Alan G Skinner says...

Correct. Call me old fashioned, but as the Government and the Local Government were elected by the people perhaps they should do what the people want them to do. As they NEVER listen to the people perhaps we should tell them. Do not interfere with ancient institutions like marriage, it is not the Governments place, this covenant is the responsibility of the church. The very idea of desecrating the sanctity of marriage for extra votes is vile and abhorent.
Correct. Call me old fashioned, but as the Government and the Local Government were elected by the people perhaps they should do what the people want them to do. As they NEVER listen to the people perhaps we should tell them. Do not interfere with ancient institutions like marriage, it is not the Governments place, this covenant is the responsibility of the church. The very idea of desecrating the sanctity of marriage for extra votes is vile and abhorent. Alan G Skinner
  • Score: 0

9:33am Fri 15 Jun 12

mimseycal says...

Civil marriage is a contractual arrangement between two individuals. Custom dictates that this is between a male and a female.

Removing the barrier that the despotism of custom imposes will neither detract nor add anything to the legal contract but merely ensure that accepting this Civil contractual arrangement is no longer limited to male/female couples only.
Civil marriage is a contractual arrangement between two individuals. Custom dictates that this is between a male and a female. Removing the barrier that the despotism of custom imposes will neither detract nor add anything to the legal contract but merely ensure that accepting this Civil contractual arrangement is no longer limited to male/female couples only. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

9:39am Fri 15 Jun 12

mtmoocher says...

Will adultery become grounds for divorce in homosexual "marriages" as it is not for the dissolution of civil partnerships? I predict more work for the law-makers & solicitors. Whatever happened to the separation of powers as a lot of MP's also seem to be lawyers or consultants?
Will adultery become grounds for divorce in homosexual "marriages" as it is not for the dissolution of civil partnerships? I predict more work for the law-makers & solicitors. Whatever happened to the separation of powers as a lot of MP's also seem to be lawyers or consultants? mtmoocher
  • Score: 0

9:50am Fri 15 Jun 12

mimseycal says...

A civil marriage is a civil marriage. Extending the ability to engage in this particular contractual arrangement does not in and of itself mean that the terms of the contractual arrangement will change but merely that the range of individuals engaging in the contractual arrangement will change.

As for the second theme of your post. Every time a law is demanded, endorsed, rewritten or applied it ensures employment for lawyers and lawmakers. You want less lawyers, demand less laws.
A civil marriage is a civil marriage. Extending the ability to engage in this particular contractual arrangement does not in and of itself mean that the terms of the contractual arrangement will change but merely that the range of individuals engaging in the contractual arrangement will change. As for the second theme of your post. Every time a law is demanded, endorsed, rewritten or applied it ensures employment for lawyers and lawmakers. You want less lawyers, demand less laws. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

10:15am Fri 15 Jun 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Silly old goat.....I am an atheist but want the marriage bit.
You are as bad as the council making decisions you don't like.
Straight people should have civil partnerships unless they are practising Christians because that's it's origins.
Silly old goat.....I am an atheist but want the marriage bit. You are as bad as the council making decisions you don't like. Straight people should have civil partnerships unless they are practising Christians because that's it's origins. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

10:20am Fri 15 Jun 12

graham_Seagull says...

It's all about equality silly.

In my book everyone deserves to get *married* and be just as unhappy as everyone else!
It's all about equality silly. In my book everyone deserves to get *married* and be just as unhappy as everyone else! graham_Seagull
  • Score: 0

10:21am Fri 15 Jun 12

Goldenwight says...

Local Councillors are elected (theoretically) to do what is best for their fellow citizens, not to respond to every single issue in vacuo which may concern those citizens, because every action has an effect on countless other issues. That way lies madness...

Having said that, I'm very surprised that there was 'unanimous' agreement- there wasn't a SINGLE dissenting voice?
Local Councillors are elected (theoretically) to do what is best for their fellow citizens, not to respond to every single issue in vacuo which may concern those citizens, because every action has an effect on countless other issues. That way lies madness... Having said that, I'm very surprised that there was 'unanimous' agreement- there wasn't a SINGLE dissenting voice? Goldenwight
  • Score: 0

10:42am Fri 15 Jun 12

mimseycal says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Silly old goat.....I am an atheist but want the marriage bit.
You are as bad as the council making decisions you don't like.
Straight people should have civil partnerships unless they are practising Christians because that's it's origins.
Marriage or rather the concept of wedlock predates Christianity. It was the original institutionalised access to women.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Silly old goat.....I am an atheist but want the marriage bit. You are as bad as the council making decisions you don't like. Straight people should have civil partnerships unless they are practising Christians because that's it's origins.[/p][/quote]Marriage or rather the concept of wedlock predates Christianity. It was the original institutionalised access to women. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

11:35am Fri 15 Jun 12

kkj says...

Is a gay marriage proposal different from a 'straight' marriage proposal?
Is a gay marriage proposal different from a 'straight' marriage proposal? kkj
  • Score: 0

11:47am Fri 15 Jun 12

Garfybeds says...

I am amazed at the attitude of some of the commenters above. It seems that religious organisations claim ownership to state of marriage - does that mean that secular countries cannot have marriage recognising the binding or relationships. In addition, these sanctimonious statements are coming from a society that treat marriage with disdain - look at how many marriages actually break up. Finally, with dwindling attendance to church, does this mean that marriage is actually a state which should be gradually be withdrawn from British society.

I have seen no sensible, unselfish argument against allowing the whole of society to recognise the official bonding of two people, be they heterosexual or homosexual. I wish the church would stop claiming a right to something that predates their existence
I am amazed at the attitude of some of the commenters above. It seems that religious organisations claim ownership to state of marriage - does that mean that secular countries cannot have marriage recognising the binding or relationships. In addition, these sanctimonious statements are coming from a society that treat marriage with disdain - look at how many marriages actually break up. Finally, with dwindling attendance to church, does this mean that marriage is actually a state which should be gradually be withdrawn from British society. I have seen no sensible, unselfish argument against allowing the whole of society to recognise the official bonding of two people, be they heterosexual or homosexual. I wish the church would stop claiming a right to something that predates their existence Garfybeds
  • Score: 0

11:56am Fri 15 Jun 12

Hovite says...

Marriage originates for the purpose of the security for the children that are born from within it and to protect the next generation. It is a tribal ceremony that was adopted by all religions but the purpose remains the same.

This is a campaign for people with too much time on their hands and whether you are gay or straight, marriage is not the be all and end all in a relationship so why bother changing something that is not broken. It is a fight for nothing all but for the ego mission of those leading it.

It will be pet owners wanting their dogs, cats or fish etc to get married in church next.

Don't tell me this already happens.
Marriage originates for the purpose of the security for the children that are born from within it and to protect the next generation. It is a tribal ceremony that was adopted by all religions but the purpose remains the same. This is a campaign for people with too much time on their hands and whether you are gay or straight, marriage is not the be all and end all in a relationship so why bother changing something that is not broken. It is a fight for nothing all but for the ego mission of those leading it. It will be pet owners wanting their dogs, cats or fish etc to get married in church next. Don't tell me this already happens. Hovite
  • Score: 0

11:59am Fri 15 Jun 12

mimseycal says...

Wedlock predates organised religion!
Wedlock predates organised religion! mimseycal
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Fri 15 Jun 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

mimseycal, you are absolutely right and this also tends to raise the historic negative connotations of marriage for women ie chattels, love, honour and obey, inability for a woman to initiate divorce and apart from those unpleasant historic aspects of marriage, until recently churches would not allow divorced poeple to re-marry in a church because marriage was linked to religion.
In modern Britain where men and women legally are equal, most people accept that marriage still has its origins in the church which states that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Therefore, its ludicrous for someone to post on this site that they are atheist but want marriage and it should only be for a man and a woman.
Marriage should only be for practising Christians and civil partnerships for all other adults - of any gender.
I recently read a feature in one of the Sunday broadsheets which explained the difference between the legal route to ending a civil partnership compared to a marriage and ending a marriage is as easy as ordering a pizza.
Beware of entering a civil partnership without knowing the costs and legal difficulties of ending a partnership.
I wonder what that says about how the church and people who undertake marriages really respect the union of marriage.
mimseycal, you are absolutely right and this also tends to raise the historic negative connotations of marriage for women ie chattels, love, honour and obey, inability for a woman to initiate divorce and apart from those unpleasant historic aspects of marriage, until recently churches would not allow divorced poeple to re-marry in a church because marriage was linked to religion. In modern Britain where men and women legally are equal, most people accept that marriage still has its origins in the church which states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, its ludicrous for someone to post on this site that they are atheist but want marriage and it should only be for a man and a woman. Marriage should only be for practising Christians and civil partnerships for all other adults - of any gender. I recently read a feature in one of the Sunday broadsheets which explained the difference between the legal route to ending a civil partnership compared to a marriage and ending a marriage is as easy as ordering a pizza. Beware of entering a civil partnership without knowing the costs and legal difficulties of ending a partnership. I wonder what that says about how the church and people who undertake marriages really respect the union of marriage. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Fri 15 Jun 12

inadaptado says...

Hovite wrote:
Marriage originates for the purpose of the security for the children that are born from within it and to protect the next generation. It is a tribal ceremony that was adopted by all religions but the purpose remains the same.

This is a campaign for people with too much time on their hands and whether you are gay or straight, marriage is not the be all and end all in a relationship so why bother changing something that is not broken. It is a fight for nothing all but for the ego mission of those leading it.

It will be pet owners wanting their dogs, cats or fish etc to get married in church next.

Don't tell me this already happens.
10 reasons to oppose marriage equality:

1. Being gay is not natural. Real British always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and central heating.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Katie Price's would be destroyed.

6. The only valid marriages are those which produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in United Kingdom.

9. Children can never succeed without both a male and female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriages will never change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy or longer life spans.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: Marriage originates for the purpose of the security for the children that are born from within it and to protect the next generation. It is a tribal ceremony that was adopted by all religions but the purpose remains the same. This is a campaign for people with too much time on their hands and whether you are gay or straight, marriage is not the be all and end all in a relationship so why bother changing something that is not broken. It is a fight for nothing all but for the ego mission of those leading it. It will be pet owners wanting their dogs, cats or fish etc to get married in church next. Don't tell me this already happens.[/p][/quote]10 reasons to oppose marriage equality: 1. Being gay is not natural. Real British always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and central heating. 2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Katie Price's would be destroyed. 6. The only valid marriages are those which produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. 7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in United Kingdom. 9. Children can never succeed without both a male and female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10. Gay marriages will never change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy or longer life spans. inadaptado
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Fri 15 Jun 12

Goldenwight says...

inadaptado wrote:
Hovite wrote: Marriage originates for the purpose of the security for the children that are born from within it and to protect the next generation. It is a tribal ceremony that was adopted by all religions but the purpose remains the same. This is a campaign for people with too much time on their hands and whether you are gay or straight, marriage is not the be all and end all in a relationship so why bother changing something that is not broken. It is a fight for nothing all but for the ego mission of those leading it. It will be pet owners wanting their dogs, cats or fish etc to get married in church next. Don't tell me this already happens.
10 reasons to oppose marriage equality: 1. Being gay is not natural. Real British always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and central heating. 2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Katie Price's would be destroyed. 6. The only valid marriages are those which produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. 7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in United Kingdom. 9. Children can never succeed without both a male and female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10. Gay marriages will never change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy or longer life spans.
Urrgh! Polyester sheets! The very thought makes me shiver.
[quote][p][bold]inadaptado[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: Marriage originates for the purpose of the security for the children that are born from within it and to protect the next generation. It is a tribal ceremony that was adopted by all religions but the purpose remains the same. This is a campaign for people with too much time on their hands and whether you are gay or straight, marriage is not the be all and end all in a relationship so why bother changing something that is not broken. It is a fight for nothing all but for the ego mission of those leading it. It will be pet owners wanting their dogs, cats or fish etc to get married in church next. Don't tell me this already happens.[/p][/quote]10 reasons to oppose marriage equality: 1. Being gay is not natural. Real British always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and central heating. 2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Katie Price's would be destroyed. 6. The only valid marriages are those which produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. 7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in United Kingdom. 9. Children can never succeed without both a male and female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10. Gay marriages will never change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy or longer life spans.[/p][/quote]Urrgh! Polyester sheets! The very thought makes me shiver. Goldenwight
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Fri 15 Jun 12

mtmoocher says...

Perhaps we should also legalise marriages between people of different religions whilst we are at it?
Perhaps we should also legalise marriages between people of different religions whilst we are at it? mtmoocher
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Fri 15 Jun 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I doubt very much that you would find polyester sheets in a gay household.Only the best Egyptian cotton, just like Jesus' choice of fabric.
I doubt very much that you would find polyester sheets in a gay household.Only the best Egyptian cotton, just like Jesus' choice of fabric. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

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