December 21st

[ewx]

[Poll #627388]

I've been idly looking out for the different approaches to quoting among newspapers. The BBC, the Independent, the Times, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express all use scare quotes (though some aren't completely consistent about it); I couldn't find any instances of scare quotes in the Economist and Guardian articles I found on the subject. (I confess to not doing an exhaustive search on any of these papers.)

Comments

[knell.livejournal.com]

Scare quotes? I don't think they're being used as scare quotes - maybe the Mail is using them as sneer quotes, but the reason for the BBC and the Independent et al quoting is probably because from the legal point of view, a civil partnership isn't quite the same as marriage (certainly not sufficiently equivalent to use "=", at least from a pedantic geek point of view) and it prevents them getting lots of e-mails from people pointing that out. They're just innocent, agenda-free quotes when used in that context.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Quotes seem fair to me, I don't think I've had the need to think about them until now. They're not marriage, they're legal arrangements approximating in many respects to marriage, so by analogy from non-alcoholic "beer" or whatever better analogy I could come up with if I didn't have the SARS. I think perhaps = civil unions might be ideal. I don't have especially strong feelings though.

[naath.livejournal.com]

They are legal arrangements providing pretty much afaict the exact same legal benefits as a legal marriage. Note that legal marriage in this country does *not* entitle you to a church service (or any other faith based proceedcake).

A civil union is effectively the exact same thing as a civil wedding, it has the same words (modulo gender), the same repercussions and happens in the same venue (vis registry office or posh hotel).

Pretty much 'is identical to marriage' as far as anyone who *isn't* concerning themselves with any faith-based theory of what a marriage might (or might not) be. The labelling is a cop out on behalf of the government, but also gets the CofE out of being 'forced' to perform gay marriages in churches (as if they would *anyway*, they don't have to marry anyone if they don't like them).

Saying that marriage and civil union are somehow inextricably different is like saying that 'le chat' and 'the cat' are somhow inextricably different.

On the other hand, if the Torygraph went arround calling it marriage then they would get many many rude letters and it wouldn't be worth their while.

There is (off the point) a movement to rename all civil weddings to civil partnerships and retain 'marriage' as a word for a religeous ceremony. Which may (or may not) make sense, depending on one's pov.

[lnr]

But I don't put the quotes in non-alcoholic beer.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

In a rare outbreak of believing the French have got something right, I would support that proposal.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

yeriknow, I just couldn't come up with a good example.

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

Hm... it might be worth trying in one last desperate attempt to give it some flavour.

[lnr]

Fairy nuff.

I voted both ways in the poll, cos I think both can be useful ways of referring to it, and there *sre* still differences between this sort of marriage and the traditional sort. I think on balance if I were a headline writer I'd probably be going for the quotes.

I'd like to see a system whereby legal partnerships *are* the same, regardless of whether the participants are gay or not. Still, this is a step in the right direction.

[fluffymormegil.livejournal.com]

Snap.

[fluffymormegil.livejournal.com]

*snrk*

[lnr]

At least it's better than non-alcoholic wine.

[sevenstring.livejournal.com]

There is (off the point) a movement to rename all civil weddings to civil partnerships and retain 'marriage' as a word for a religeous ceremony.

I think that would be a shame. Marriage, for all its faults, does come with a nice collection of words to describe it, its participants, and the various events and concepts involved. `Darling, will you join me in a civil union?' just doesn't have a ring about it somehow.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

For a newspaper, pandering to a particular section - even in a relatively passive way - is a political act.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

But that's the question: are they marriage, and why? In legal terminology, sure, they're technically different at the moment, but most people don't speak in legal terminology most of the time (fortunately), so that argument doesn't carry much weight with me, or hopefuly anyone else who pays attention to the way people use language.

The vernacular will doubtless work itself out given time, but I foresee a generation of new twist on the argument over whether gay means happy or homosexual.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

In casual conversation I would say marriage wihtout the quotes[1]. Though for the moment at least, I think legal marriage might be a more primary meaning of marriage.

Somewhere where the difference mattered and I wanted to refer to all sorts, I might use quotes.

I don't know where newspapers should fall.

[1] OK, techincally there should be quotes in the sentence I just wrote :p that would be more confusing. Even if I used italics as quotes.

[rowan-leigh.livejournal.com]

More =~ marriage than = "marriage" from my point of view. My understanding is that there are some differences between the two (though tbh I'm not sure what they are); therefore not good enough in my opinion.

[armb.livejournal.com]

Though the French civil unions (AIUI) aren't really equivalent to marriage/"marriage". Two spinster sisters sharing a house can have a civil union, for example.

[armb.livejournal.com]

> I voted both ways

Me too. There will be people for whom it is marriage, and other people who won't accept that.

[new-brunette.livejournal.com]

> Note that legal marriage in this country does *not* entitle you to a church service

The CofE disagrees with you. They even use the word "entitle".

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/weddings/

[rowan-leigh.livejournal.com]

(But I would consider a couple who had been so "partnered" to be married.)

[(Anonymous)]

They are specifically intended by the government to be identical to marriage, as revealed by http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3996819.stm

S

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

The Tories proposed an amendment which would have enabled that in the UK, as well...

[nmg.livejournal.com]

That's more or less my attitude towards it.

I still think that it's a shame that this hasn't been brought in with an amendment to the Marriage Act; as it stands, the difference is definately "=~". While I welcome progressive legislation like this, it isn't as progressive as I'd like, since there's still a message that same-sex relationships are separate from and not equal to civil marriages (as defined by parts I and III of the Marriage Act 1949).

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

But you could still get married - it just wouldn't be a state-sponsored thing. Marriage would be the bit you do with your friends and family and deity/clergy/druid of choice. The civil partnership would deal with the legal and fiscal aspects of it.

[naath.livejournal.com]

Doesn't mean that you'll find a vicar to give you one, by which I mean only *your* vicar is supposed to marry you and he/she might refuse to on some grounds such as being divorced. My aunt was refused a second church wedding because of being divorced, allthough they may have changed the rules since.

[new-brunette.livejournal.com]

They've relaxed the rules since then - it used to be more-or-less impossible to remarry in church while your ex-spouse was still alive. The guidance suggests that vicars should take a number of things into account now, such as the reasons for the breakdown of the previous marriage. If, for instance, the relationship forming the new marriage resulted in the breakdown of the previous marriage through an affair, a vicar would be much less likely to agree.

I know (from personal experience) that there are exceptions to the entitlement. But for a first marriage on both sides, there is an entitlement, which is what I was contesting in what you'd said.