Besides, everyone else was supposed to be the majority to ‘check our privilege’. We in the ‘everybody else’ community have nothing to worry about on this one! Hence, most of us don’t!

Those luckless souls in Syria have the worries!

It’s not about it being ‘beneath’ anyone, it’s about equal treatment under the law, an absolute basic right for all citizens. No one is equal until we are all equal, which is why huge numbers of people from the LGBT+ community have also supported the equal civil partnership campaign.

Your gay puns are offensive.

it doesn’t matter to you – that’s fine – but it does matter to some people. what is your objection?

CP was brought in to appease the more militant of those in the gay lobby. It always was a watered-down half-measure, which is why gays then demanded the full whack, marriage.

Now we find silly heteros wanting to downgrade their own status, just as gays were finding the same option beneath them!

Still, none so queer as folk, I suppose.

Woo, sounds like another left wing hobby horse to ride!

That would be a start, anyway.

Any marrying couple should be entitled to register their marriage as bound by the law prior to 1969 with regard to grounds and procedures for divorce, and any religious organisation should be enabled to specify that any marriage that it conducted should be so bound, requiring it to counsel couples accordingly. Statute should specify that the Church of England and the Church in Wales each be such a body unless, respectively, the General Synod and the Governing Body specifically resolved the contrary by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses. There should be similar provision relating to the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, which also exist pursuant to Acts of Parliament, as well as by amendment to the legislation relating to the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy.

Entitlement upon divorce should be fixed by Statute at one per cent of the other party’s estate for each year of marriage, up to 50 per cent, with no entitlement for the petitioning party unless the other party’s fault were proved.

Am I trying to go back to the 1950s? To which features of the 1950s, exactly? Full employment? Public ownership? The Welfare State? Council housing? Municipal services? Apprenticeships? Free undergraduate tuition? All of those things were bound up with things like this. That they have all been eroded or destroyed together has not been a coincidence. It is not called neoliberalism for nothing.