Since your are here, you might try using the search feature at the top right hand page enter 'marriage.' There are a lot of comments on this site about the topic, but not many to do specifically with Scotland.

Here are some sources to check:

Human Rights Campaign.

Marriage Equality USA
in the middle of the page you will find banner links to Legal Briefs and Marriage stories.

Much of the obstruction to same sex unions is brought about by bigotry hiding behind religion. See religioustolerance.org

or search their site for "marriage."

Wikipedia has a gay marriage page.
And a page for Civil partnership in the United Kingdom
Check out the footnotes and links at the bottom of the page for more detailed information on specific laws and and papers on the subject.

More specific information can be found by Googling '"civil partnership" United Kingdom'

For instance the first link is for Civil Partnerships - Introduction, from a gov.uk site and a lower down I found a link to stonewall.org.uk, where you may beable to find articles that mention the specific impact in Scotland as well as stories about married couples.

You may want to narrow your study down to one particular issue, because there's quite a bit of data out there. Perhaps gay marriage and adoption. Or the impact on individuals lives, there are case studies and books referenced at religioustolerance.org. Or perhaps you want to discuss the arguments presented by the religious. Or how gay marriage has been accepted around the world.

Good luck, you have chosen an impressive topic. I am sure the students in your group will be interested in your final report.

.

 

Hey Lucy,

Lots of topics there to cover so good luck with all that! The reason for the difference in names between marrage and civil partnership was, from what I can remember, a political decision. At the time when it was being introduced there was quite a bit of tension between traditionalist groups promoting family with religious groups and then those who are LGBT as well as their supporters. In a bid to appease both parties the idea of a civil partnership was used in a way that allows LGBT people to 'wed' but only in a legal sense, marriage itself would therefore be reserved to heterosexual couples. I hope I'm getting this right, I'm relying on my memory of when it all happened!

Basically they're the same except marriage has the religious value to it.

All of the info regarding the legal aspects as Nukely said can be found through online sources and Wiki (Wiki is great - just remember to give all the info you get from there a different source name though as teachers generally don't like people using wiki as a reference).

As for your mention about discrimination in the workplace it can be considered the same by many minority groups as an employer or co-worker cannot discriminate against the employee because of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.

Now there have been complaints about this because an individual could still be discriminated against in other ways, say for example a potential employee having an interview, if the employer has a problem with the potential employee they could still not give them the job just by selecting someone else or stating that the person does not have the necessary skills, thats one way to discriminate without actually bringing up the real reason and of course without a statement or evidence it cannot be proven that discrimination occured.

The same kind of idea could occur whilst already in a job, if information about an employee is discovered which the employer disagrees with then they could fire them for a different reason (if one presents itself - cases of people who did a good job but getting fired for sub-standard reasons do occur and usually the fired employee does win).

On the other side of the argument some individuals find the equal opportunity laws to carry out positive discrimination, tabloids especially have commented that due to 'quotas' within companies minorities are being offered positions whilst their straight/white/male counterparts are being ignored.

Obviously we must remember that though the law was created with a specific intent other people have found ways around it or to exploit it.

Outside of the workplace the LGBT community has more channels through which to seek protection from discrimination. Many cities/towns have their own LGBT outreach programs and phonelines, packs publicising how to report hate crimes have been distributed all over the country so that it is easier to report any discrimination a person may suffer, also a lot of local police authorities have adopted/are adopting LGBT liaison officers who hold meetings for LGBT people to attend for advice, etc.

Now then, at first when the equality laws came into effect there was an initial resistance by some. Obviously certain organisations affiliated with religion still refused service to same sex partners/LGBT individuals, an example of this were church owned adoption centers. There was a challenge made by religious groups against the equal rights law with their view being that it meant that religious people were being discriminated against by being forced to provide services for homosexuals. After this I'm not 100% certain of what happened but I believe that an extra bit was added to the law allowing those who did not agree with the law for religious reasons to not provide such services.

Right then, apart from that I don't know what else to say. Most of this has been from my own view and recollection so please make sure to double check what I've said with sources first.

As for your question concerning what can straight people do what gay people can't, I think that everyones got a different view on that. For instance I think that straight people can just go anywhere and flirt with anyone and even show public displays of affection without any backlash whilst generally gay men don't have that opportunity, my friend Sarah however does all those things anyway with other women and has the opinion that both straight people and gay people can do that.

As for the improvement of the law, again that would vary with peoples' opinions. Unfortunately to me it seems that religious views are respected more than peoples' rights and as such the LGBT community will never have the full support of the law. The only way this could change, in my opinion, is if Britain has a secular government or at least an atheist Prime Minister who can see that allowing loop-holes for religious individuals or groups to disobey the law is just rediculous.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant there, hope I helped even a little bit. :D

Oh and I'm British just to clarify and avoid any confusion.

Thank you very much, that's all been very interesting and helpful!

Even if your focus is on the UK, it pays to take a quick look (through Wikipedia or via Google search) at the various nations that have legalized same-sex marriage.  These are:  The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa and Norway.Also, there are nations currently considering legalizing it (Iceland, Sweden, Cuba and Venezuela).

The main benefit to this is to examine the political rationales and/or party behaviors impacting this issue. In the UK for example you had support for Civil Partnerships from Labour and the Lib Dems, as well as from some Tories (including even David Cameron).  However you also had considerable opposition (especially from some Tories in the Lords).  But in order to appease someon the religious issue a compromise was made regarding the word "marriage" and on blocking holding the ceremonies as part of religious rights (which is technically an infringement on religious freedom).

Other countries had different attitudes.  Christian Democrat parties tend to oppose same-sex marriage (though they're variable on civil partnerships).  Thus same-sex marriage tends to pass in countries where the CD's aren't currently in government. This is also true of other conservative parties such as a Spain's Popular Party.  In Spain the Socialists managed to force same-sex marriage through over the objections of the PP (and their allies in the Catholic Church).  That said, some PP politicians quietly approve of the law, and PP city mayors have even happily officiated over same-sex weddings.

This touches on the same point as Tories who supported the civil partnership law.  Is opposition to same-sex marriage genuine or simply a matter of playing to religious conservative voters?  That is a question commonly asked here in the U.S., where some Republicans seem sympathetic but still make a show of opposing same-sex marriage.  In the U.S. the issue is unquestionably one of playing to religious voters who have been told by their clergy in no uncertain terms that homosexuality is a sin and same-sex marriage is wrong.

Another angle this might lead you to explore is whether civil partnerships in the U.K. might evolve into marriage in the future.  The Netherlands, the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, went through a civil unions phase before they decided it was pointless not to legalize same-sex marriage.  As the general public in the U.K. becomes more accustomed to same-sex couples and the legal recognition of their relationships might they not be more open to them being "marriages" in name and fact?  Some people already call civil partnerships "marriages" now.

For extra brownie points explorehow the current state of U.K. politics might affect this.  Labour is in decline while the Tories are rising.  The Lib Dems also hope to steal votes from Labour.  There's also pressure to oust Brown and call an election.  Finally you have movements to further devolve Scotland and Wales.  Do the nationalist parties support expanding to full marriage?

This is a great topic.  Thank you for taking it up in your project.

Thanks again, that's very helpful.  I'm really looking forward to holding my discussion now!