Marriage Versus Civil Partnerships

This whole gay marriage debate is still going on. I have previously posted 10 reasons why the government should allow equal marriage and my post with my poem about equal marriage but this is going to talk more about the fight between marriage and civil partnership. Have you heard Susan Calman's legendary comedic rant on gay marriage? At her wedding she wanted to march down the aisle to The Proclaimer's 'Let's Get Married' and have Pam Ayres' 'Yes I'll Marry You My Dear' read out but wasn't allowed, because it wasn't technically legally actually a marriage.
So there is marriage (civil marriage)...and there's civil partnerships (civil ceremonies, civil unions) but why aren't there same-sex marriages/gay marriages/equal marriage?
People say that gay people have equality because they can have a civil partnership - but no, the mere fact that it is called a 'civil partnership' rather than a 'marriage' illustrates that there is not equality.
"I'm married" sounds so much better than "I'm civil partnered" and "Mrs and Mrs" beats "Ms and Ms". "This is my wife" has a better ring to it than "This is my civil partner".
People argue that marriage should be kept 'traditional' but traditionally interracial couples could not marry, women were slaves and divorce was unheard of. Religious organisations say that allowing two men or two women to marry is going against God's view but what about secular atheist couples who marry? They are tied into a religious institution but don't believe in it.
Another argument: Marriage should be an institution that promotes in the birth of children. So we shouldn't let elderly, infertile or couples who don't wish to procreate have children? 
Marriage should be between a man and a woman. What about forced/arranged marriages? And straight couples who marry at 2am in Las Vegas as part of a drunken mistake. Couples who divorce not long after tying the knot.

Marriage v civil partnership:

What's the difference?

Is there a legal difference between the two?
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 gave same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities similar to those in a civil marriage. Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors. There is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a civil partnership.

So why don't they have the same status under English law?

In 2006, Sir Mark Potter, president of the high court family division, told an academic lesbian couple that they faced an "insurmountable hurdle" in trying to have a same-sex marriage recognised in English law. He said marriage was regarded as an "age-old institution" that was "by long-standing definition and acceptance" a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children. The couple, Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson, who were married in Canada and spent their life savings on the court battle, said they were deeply disappointed saying they had been "stripped" of their marriage.

Any practical differences in the ceremonies? Until now it has been banned for civil partnership ceremonies to include religious readings, music or symbols and forbidden for them to take place in religious venues, regardless of the views of the building's owners. In Scotland, which has its own legislation, some church parishes offer blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Any other practical differences? Civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled.

Maybe we should allow straight couples to have civil partnerships so that non-religious couples don't have to buy into a once religious institution and liberal couples into a once racist and sexist institution. Equality means EVERYONE marries or EVERYONE civil partners, no separating and dividing. Marriage has changed over time so now it should change one little bit more.
Marriage should be about love not gender. If two people want to marry why stop them? Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay, simple.

Pro-Marriage But Not Anti-Gay: I Don't Think So

So I click open my emails and find an email news update from PinkNews about the MP David Burrowes. He quoted that "I am not anti-gay just pro-marriage". I found this statement ridiculous and clicked onto the link to read the full article. Basically the MP was saying that he supported civil partnerships but did not approve of same-sex couples entering into marriage because it is 'for a man and a woman'. 

"I support civil partnerships so much so that I do not see the need to change marriage to encompass same-sex couples when it has always existed as a distinctive relationship between a man and a woman" David Burrowes.

Well I proceeded to argue with his point and sent him an email explaining why you cannot be pro-marriage but only for straight people and not anti-gay.

I researched his voting record only to discover he voted for/against:

• Against outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in 2007
• To prevent lesbians from having access to fertility treatment in 2008
• Against outlawing incitement to homophobic hatred in 2009
• He doesn't appear to have voted on the Equality Act (which consolidated and extended the various bits of legislation on discrimination) in 2010
• Against same-sex marriage in 2013

So it appears that he doesn't want LGBT people to be able to get married or have children and he thinks that discriminating against them is fine but he is not anti-gay. This does not make any sense whatsoever. 

I emailed him my angry yet well-mannered composition of ideas and beliefs and then sent it to PinkNews. They said it was a "strongly written letter" and posted it on their website. 

I am now waiting for David's reply, may he send one. I looked him up on Twitter and discovered that he believes: "There must be safeguards for religious freedom in the Same Sex Marriage Bill. And a referendum".

I informed David that "I am 17 and I identify as lesbian. I am one of the future generation. I believe everyone should be allowed to marry if they desire to, including the LGBT community".

I went on to question: "How is their (LGBT people's) love any less deserving or real than straight people's? The only thing that undermines marriage is divorce, something straight people seem to be very good at".

I was annoyed by his use of the term 'pro-marriage'. Someone who is pro-marriage would believe strongly in the marital institution and want as many people as possible to take part it in, so how is excluding a whole group of people from the marital institution pro-marriage?

Using the 'I support marriage' argument in an equal marriage bill is not rational. If you support marriage you must believe it is best for everyone. Claiming you are 'pro-marriage' but not 'anti-gay' is like saying you are vegetarian but don't mind eating pork when it suits you. 

Come on David, think about it; are you really in favour of civil partnerships? Are you really not 'anti-gay'? I don't think so...you're just a bigot covering your homophobia with pro-marriage blankets.

I later found that When Sally Met Sally had published a similar article on their website and I contacted them and they have arranged to publish my blog posts/for me to write posts to be published on their website. Woo!