Well Melanie, much as I think this Bill is farcical, I doubt Michael Howard can do much about it. He has no majority and is not even close thanks to William Hague and his bizarre 2001 election.

Moreover, is this not merely implementing in British Law an EU Directive for the Social Affairs Commissariat ?

I believe there is a whole slew of this stuff to be processed in the parliamentary sausage factory.

Why just stop with same-sex marriage? What about supporting the rights of men and women to marry different species? Why should pets lose their pensions just because their owner dies? Why shouldn't Linda Snell be able to divorce her husband and marry one or both of her lamas if she so chooses? Why shouldn't we try to make it up to foxes for all those centuries of abuse by bringing them into our homes and hearts for as long as they stay out of the hen house?

And just imagine the whole world of opportunity it will open up for the Ann Widdecombe's of this world who never have been able to find a mate among homo sapiens: "Do you Ann take this jackass to be your lawfully wedded husband?"

Damn, politicians can be so narrow-minded.

Murderers can marry. Prostitutes can marry. Serial wife-beaters can marry. But no. According to Melanie, homosexual partners cannot even be allowed to enjoy partnership rights.

To dispense with Melanie's first red herring about cohabiting heterosexual couples: they can already enjoy the benefits of marriage - if they marry! Simple.

Long-term homosexual partners however have no such access to legally-guaranteed protection of their wishes in a variety of circumstances.

For example, in the case of a homosexual wishing to leave his property to his partner, there is currently no way of ensuring that his wishes cannot be over-ruled by a member of his family.

The result of this is that many homosexuals have lost their homes immediately after the trauma of losing their partner. They have even been prevented from attending their partner's funeral.

Similarly, in the event of an accident requiring hospitalisation, there is no right to visit unless the visitor can prove that he is married or related to the patient.

Michael Howard is quite right to allow a free vote on introducing same-sex partnership rights. Introducing same-sex partnership rights would redress these cruel and unneccessary humiliations and enable consenting adults to share their lives together in accordance with their wishes and within the law and without hindrance to other people.

Finally, the assertion that such a civilising advance could in any way affect the marriage of heterosexuals is totally without any factual basis - the married patrons of the Dog and Duck are wise enough to realise that it's the people IN the marriage who make it work / not work.

I am a convinced Tory, yet I have no problem wuith the idea of gay marriage because I believe that it will strengthen the institution of marriage in the long run.

Marriage as an insitution has been attacked in literatue and the arts for years as an old-fashioned and deasfully patriarchal affair. My guess is that many of those leading the charge in this case were homosexualists who could not marry, and who are over-represented in the artistic community. If we allow homosexualists to marry, they will have to start taking the institution more seriously.
In fact it would be a good thing to strengthen the ties of marriage at the same time as passing an enactment which allows homosexualists to marry. In this way we could get rid of the really heinous idea that "partners" (homosexual or hetrosexual) should have anywhere near the same rights as married couples.

"If we allow homosexualists to marry, they will have to start taking the institution more seriously."

And why not just the opposite ?

"For example, in the case of a homosexual wishing to leave his property to his partner, there is currently no way of ensuring that his wishes cannot be over-ruled by a member of his family."

Forming a limited company and issuing shares would solve this problem, I suspect.

Peter,

Yes you are correct - it is possible to form a company. This is what my partner and I have done in Brussels where we now live (Brit expats). However, this is an expensive and legalistic route which creates loads of red tape (particularly here in Belgium). I am not sure of how difficult/expensive it would be in the UK.

We also carry printed statements in our passports (and, yes, in our ID cards!) expressing that in the event of an accident involving one of us, the other should be informed and given the right to visit the other in hospital. However, our specific written requests cannot be guaranteed - they can be be over-ridden by, for example, a hospital administrator who could state that these rights only accrue to a next of kin. Under existing laws he/she would be correct.

Wgen we travel across borders together, we have to queue separately at passport controls while married couples or families can depart/enter together. This creates worries about 'what would happen if one of us was stopped and searched' etc etc once the other had crossed the border into the country we were entering.

Dealing with these types of issues is time-consuming and complex. But for us it is worth it because we have an unbreakable relationship that would weather any impediments.

However, how much better it would be if partnership rights were introduced so that long-term homosexual couples could live their lives together free of these barriers - after all, we are not excluded from paying taxes, so why should we be excluded from enjoying the rights of tax-paying citizens?

Let's take a step back, here.

Why is it any business of the State to decide who may, or may not, marry who, or what?

Let anyone who wants to marry anyone or anything they please, say I, as long as there are competent and reliable witnesses and the contract between them can be enforced (which lets the llamas out of it, thank heavens).

The State has, or should have, nothing to do with it.

At last someone is talking some sense on this site, David. As for you, Mr Williamson, why don't you try getting out more? Go for a walk in the park, feed the ducks, see a film?

Red Ken sounds like a total loon, but it's not like we Yanks don't have crackpot mayors either. Marion Berry, anyone? (Long time Mayor of Washington DC.)

A few "Marionisms" quoted below:

"The laws in this city are clearly racist. All laws are racist. The law of gravity is racist."

"What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem it necessary?"

"If you take out the killings, Washington (DC) actually has a very, very low crime rate."

"Red Ken" actually sounds somewhat rational in comparison.

Whooops, apologies, that comment was supposed to go under the "Red Ken" web entry. Sorry.

Ms Phillips, may I ask what your alternative would be? Would your alternative be something more stringent and more difficult to get out of, would it be something broader (perhaps to incorporate your spinster sister theory, as happens in some continental countries) or would it be nothing at all? I seem to remember from your earlier writings it would be nothing at all. I have to say, I do feel it would be better if a constructive alternative was put forward. It's not really much good saying that it is unfair because spinster sister relationships will miss out if you would oppose a broad settlement of this type even if it took in such relationships and it's also not much good if you use the fact that such contracts bring with them few responsibilities against them, only to oppose any contract that does bring with it significant responsibility as a carbon copy of marriage, thus devaluing the institution. I don't agree with Andrew Sullivan on everything but I do think he's right when he says that it would be nice to see some sort of a positive agenda and contribution from those opposed to what is being put up on offer rather than relentless negatives.

As for the free vote - it is not a sign of softness, it is a sign of the Tory Party adhering to the traditions of Parliament, something which they unforgivably failed to do over gay adoption. This is a conscience issue and a free vote is entirely justified. To give one is not soggy (the great majority of Tory MP's will undoubtedly vote against the measure in any case), it is the right thing to do. To put down a whip in favour would be soggy, to put down a whip against would draconian and hypocritical. Howard is doing the right thing and there is no doubt in my mind that Tory MPs will largely vote against the measure on their own initiative anyway.

Well, I've one thing to say on this subject: Hooray for Massachuesetts! I know, that sounds really irrelevant.

I just read in The Times (New York Times) that Massachusetts' highest court just ruled that gay couples have the right to marry under the state's constitution. And the court gave the state legislature 180 days to make same-sex marriages possible.

This is the same state that alone (except for Washington, D.C.) voted for George McGovern in 1972.

I sort of consider myself an honorary citizen of Massachusetts, since I went to school there.

I don't know how this court order stacks up against the British parliamentary proposal, but I think it 's a good thing. It will help remove the stigma from gay people, and help stabilize their lifestyle. Sorry, I sound like what I am: an old-fashioned liberal. But then again, I voted (and campaigned) for McGovern.

Joanne, I disagree and I'll tell you why. One of the reasons why we have a lot less controversy in the United Kingdom over issues such as abortion, capital punishment and gay rights than you do in the USA is not so much that we are more liberal over here than that advances in these issues, liberalising measures, have largely been introduced through votes in Parliament following extensive debates, whereas in America liberalising measures have often been enforced through the courts rather than through the elected legislature. This drastically reduces their legitimacy in the eyes of opponents. Even if we take the view that the whole gay marriage thing is a good idea, the argument needs to be fought and won in the country and through the legislature.

Gratitude is the most exquisite form of courtesy.

There was no immunity to cuckoo ideas on Earth.