Gay military peeps

[blueberet]

I have a friend who is gay. He would like to marry the man he is engaged to. Both parties are in the military. He has found a priest/vicar that will marry him to his intended. When they marry, will they qualify for a military quarter? Will the military recognise the marriage?

What does the network think or know? Any lawyers/wise ones out there with the official line?

What is the military line in the UK?

[Chilli Monster]

How can the Military recognise the marriage when the law of the land (UK) doesn't.

Military law isn't separate - just an extension.

Therefore - no legal marriage, no access to married quarters - QED

CM

[Chicken Leg]

Your "friend" eh?

You're having a laugh!

[Scud-U-Like]

Blueberet. Gay marriage per se is probably a long way off, but the Government is currently drafting a White Paper that will propose legislation to recognise same-sex partnerships. The effect of this legislation will be to give those in a 'long-term' relationship (gay or straight) similar taxation, pension, inheritance and next-of-kin rights to those currently held by a spouse.

The services are already contemplating changes to the qualifying criteria for service accommodation. One difficulty will be defining what is and what is not a 'long-term relationship'. The services will obviously take their lead from the new legislation on this question.

Doubtless there will be a good deal of huffing and puffing (no pun intended) from the alarmists, regarding these changes. However, the lifting of the ban on gays serving in the armed forces has been with us for over two years now and has caused none of the turmoil that was predicted by some. I imagine that, once implemented, changes to the SFQ qualifying criteria will be met with similar indifference.

[ 24 February 2002: Message edited by: Scud-U-Like ]</p>

[blueberet]

That seems very straight forward then. They can get married, but its not legal.

I'll let my friend know CL.

[Sven Sixtoo]

No they can't get married. Marriage is a legal state governed by a collection of statutes and common law. They can go through the ceremonial process, and invite the blessing of the church or whatever, but they cannot get married under English law.

A recent case illustrating the point is Bellinger v Bellinger [2002] 2 WLR 411, where the court of appeal denied the validity of a purported marriage between a transsexual, originally male, and a man. The underlying law was the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which requires marriage to be between "male" and "female".

On the secondary issue of access to FQs, I foresee a few interesting arguments if MOD start down this road. Same-sex couples currently have no right to a FQ; if they were granted such we could conceivably have a situation where two good mates who want to move out of the block can do so if they are bu&&ering each other but not otherwise. Taking one further logical step, if the wife persistently withholds nookie, could the couple be thrown out of their FQ? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> The only coherent positions would seem to be theone we have, or one in which anyoe could apply for a FQ under a set of criteria with no element of sexual/gender combination preference.

Edited to re-insert the technically accurate term the machine doesn't like!

[ 25 February 2002: Message edited by: Sven Sixtoo ]</p>

[Jim Pooley]

This subject causes nightmares for all, not just same-sex couples. I personally am unmarried, but in a long term relationship with a new baby. The Army will not give me a quarter now, but they will if i marry (obviously) but also if i split from my partner! How laughable is that? The fact i can improve my living arrangements by making my personal situation worse. The military still operates in the dark ages. Ill have a suit of armour on my 1157 next.

[slim boy fat]

Blokes "marrying" blokes????????!!!!!!. .It`s disgraceful. I`m personally sick of having to keep my trap shut incase I upset a batty-boy.

I demand my equal opportunity to not be discriminated against for being a bigot!

[Jim Pooley]

Know where your coming from, slim. But im afraid in these "PC" days we just have to keep our mouths not shut, but just restricted. Remember equality works both ways.

[False Capture]

Did JP really say that he is in a relationship with a baby????!!!

<img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[Jim Pooley]

I despair sometimes.

I really do.

FalseCapture, i think you need to peruse some "other" sites, if that kind of thing flicks your switch.

[Flashman]

Finals for the chocolate runway!!

[stillin1]

Since u asked. Shoot em both, give the vicar the day off and allocate the MQ to normal people.

[Scud-U-Like]

stillin1. Should your own son or daughter turn out to be gay, I take it you'll be ready with the shotgun.

[Lucifer]

It would be sensible to have some sort of rule, whereby those in long-term relationships of any persuasion are able to get quarters together when the relationship has lasted greater than say 8 or 12 months. That seems fair, reasonable, and prevents any sort of couple gaining quarters unfairly, and and to the detriment of more deserving couples.. .. .Grow up, I myself am not always PC but sensible enough to realise that this is not a passing problem - it cannot be ignored permanently.. .. .Or if you want to ignore facts, the President of Ghana (? or somewhere else similar) claimed HIV infection rates have been radically reduced as his country has no gays. Right.

[opso]

Lucifer, it has to be a system that is not open to abuse as there are already too few FMQs around with the consolidation of bases. How do you prove that a couple (regardless of gender) have been in a steady relationship for a year? The reality is that unless they already live together (twin signatories on a rental agreement or mortgage for example) they cannot prove a steady relationship. Regardless of the views of the need for / validity of marriage, it does give a piece of paper that indicates a general committment.. .. .If I were a singly, hacked off with living in the mess and another singly (of the opposite gender for the sake of argument) was the of the same mind, what would stop us from saying that we have been involved for a year, demanding a quarter, splitting the rent and being nothing more than flat-mates? Given that waiting lists for FMQs are already anywhere up to 6 months (great when my average tour length is 18 - 20 months!) this extra 'eligible couple' would only increase this wait for everyone else. That is plainly not fair.. .. .I do not give a rats if the next door neighbours are gay as long as they don't go at it in a hot-tub in the back garden (lesbians on the other hand...). I don't care if they are straight and unmarried or single parent families. But I wouldn't be happy with a system that is so open to abuse that the qualifying argument for getting a quarter becomes '...because I want one.' There needs to be proof for eligiability, but that does not currently exist for either gay or long-term unmarried couples in this country. Until that changes, I do not see how a workable system can be put in place.

[Lucifer]

True, it was perhaps idealistic, but if there was indisputable proof of a long-lasting relationship, then this could lead to a solution. I am well aware of the problems at the moment, and I did qualify my statement by saying it should not be "to the detriment of more deserving.". .. .Of course the solution is with Mr Brown, and I admit I cannot think of a workable system, and there are many cases of higher priority, though I was addressing the thread's question.

[Admin Guru]

I think many of us in the military are now realising what the F3 force have known for a long time. I think it's great that the modern RAF acknowledges that sexual preferences do not affect flying ability - the butch nature of Air Defence proves this.

[robspottydog]

So apart from the gratification of the immediate parties involved <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> , what does gay sex give society or the human race (apart from depleted morals, HIV............)

[Scud-U-Like]

robspottydog. Are you seriously suggesting that heterosexual couples have sex primarily for the benefit of society and the procreation of the species? People sh@g because it's fun (or perhaps you regard it as a purely functional act). Bearing in mind at least one person in ten is gay, then gay sex benefits at least 10% of society (and has yet to put a Stalin, a Hitler or a Bin Laden on this earth). If you believe that being gay is immoral, then your interpretation of 'depleted morals' is already based on a flawed premise . The incidence of HIV is now higher among heterosexuals than it is among homosexuals (don't you read the papers?)

[Pegasus77]

Stillin1, Since you brought it up:. .. .People like you make me sick.. .. .I am glad in Germany, as well as in the Netherlands the gay marriage is allowed by law. There is no reason to prevent other people from being happy together.

[Pegasus77]

And Robspottydog,. .If you are having sex with a woman.... where in the world would that help me?. .. .Let people have their personal gratification, you're not required to be a part in it are you?