If there's one thing this goes to prove, it's that problems are relative (no pun intended, honest). I spend my time worrying about wether my life is useful to that proportion of humanity which I hold dear (and not the rest, of course, as the modern 21st century ethos does not embrace the notion of reciprocal atruism and "pay it forward")... these 2 ladies who want to bounce their heads off expensive legal walls for a while are abviously in an enlightened mental state as their pyramid of needs now requires them to get the state to say they're married.

There are people STAR-VING out there in big wide world land.

There's a guy who has lived under the M4 flyover for years insulting automatons in the shiny metal boxes as they drive by to the chiswick roundabout on their way to their daily integration...

There's a malleable puppet prat running the USA threatening anyone with oil reserves...

And now I agree with Jo. Shock! These two should be thrown out for wasting time, or told to go to a european court somewhere where they give a stuff about esoteric musings like human rights. This is the UK goddammit, and no constitution is going to hamper our happiness!

gibber

Calm down, dear. It's only a blog. I think you need a nice cup of tea.

There are far worse things than that, there are socialists trying to steal money off people, for causes they can't be bothered to take the time and effort to explain why the are worthwhile.

Perhaps the automaton is Andy W?

Rob, I have no idea who you are, whereas Andy's one of my best friends. Your clumsy attempts at insulting him won't make you welcome round these parts.

If two people want to get married, who are the government (their employees, afterall) to tell them that they can't.

Fuck the governement and their interference in our daily lives.

Small state, efficient public spending and "leave me the fuck alone to get on with it".

Yeah, but, while I agree with that, the Government haven't prevented these two women from marrying, have they? Why this couple are going to court, in fact, is in order to force the Government not to keep out of their private lives.

I've read and reread it several times now and I still have no idea what the legal argument is. Maybe I need more coffee.

> If two people want to get married, who are the government (their employees, afterall) to tell them that they can't.

Um, surely in the case of non-religious marriages it's entirely the government's concern? Or am I missing something?

It's interesting that people are now so conditioned to think in terms of state control that they genuinely think that their marriage is somehow less meaningful if the government don't officially recognise it.

I genuinely think that, because marriage is entirely a *legal* institution. All that distinguishes a married couple from an unmarried couple is the bit of paper authorized by the government which says that they're married (and therefore entitled to all the concomitant legal benefits, pensions, tax-arrangements, whatever). It's perfectly possible to live together, love each other, have sex, raise chidren, etc. that is to say to "live together as a married couple" without being married.

And because all mariage is (to those of us without religious beliefs anyway) is (a) state-recognition of our relationship, (b) a tax-break, I *do* fgive a damn about gay-marriage.

Oh, and in case you're interested, Rob Read is a escapee of USSNeverdock, and is a thoroughly nasty piece of far-right work.

I know exactly what you mean, Larry, 'cause I used to think the same. Don't any more, though. Marriage is a social institution. Both the government and the religions are recording and ritualising something that probably predated them and that certainly would exist without them.

There is a difference between being married and living as a married couple. To live together, you only need commit to each other (not that there's anything wrong with that). To get married, you have to stand in front of witnesses — often hundreds of them — and publicly declare your commitment to each other, effectively making a commitment not only to each other but also to your peers. These days, since no-one bothers to keep promises, this commitment is regarded as meaningless ritual. Which is a shame.

Your belief that marriage is a legal institution is ridiculous. The laws came after the institution; without the laws, it would still be there. You might as well claim that, since there are loads of laws and tax rules concerning the difference between being under and over eighteen years old, childhood is entirely a legal institution.

For the record, I'm an atheist.

Oh, and besides, that's all irrelevant. The couple I wrote about, like many gay activists, are rejecting civil partnerships — all the legal and tax benefits of marriage without the word "marriage" — and fighting for the right to marry. They clearly don't share your opinion on the matter, Larry.

So any couple who hold a ceremony where they stand in front of lots of witnesses and publicly declare their commitment to each other are "married" by your definition?

Well you have every right to use the word with that meaning if you wish, but you're wrong to suggest that's is as cut and dry a matter as death or childhood. There are other definitions floating around in this country, and one which is far more common than yours incorporates the notion of state-recognition (however distasteful you may find this).

So while by your definition homosexuals, children, polygamists, incestuous couples, and so on may all be "married", were they to tick the "married" box on any of the innumerable forms with which our lives are filled, they would could get hauled before some officious body and asked to explain themsleves. Then they would be made to fill out the form again, ticking the "single" box.

I don't like this any more than you do, but unfortunately "married" is one of those words which the state uses its power to ration the use of, and does so pretty effectively using the tax-laws. The fact that during this rationing (which, like you, I don't like anyway) they currently discriminate against homosexuals, is something I dislike a lot.

Er, Larry, you're not actually disagreeing with what I've written. So stop arguing, already.

One thing I do disagree with you about, though: if our myriad form-checking bureaucrats were as observant as you think, benefit fraud wouldn't be a problem.