[foldr]

>And in any case there is simply no real value for gays to become 'married' other than getting a sticker.

The "sticker" was a visa in my husband's case. Although the UK does not require you to be married to your partner in order for them to get a visa, you have to provide all kinds of ridiculous documentation in the absence of a marriage certificate. In other countries (e.g. the US), being married is an absolute requirement.

[alexro]

Does it make more sense to change Visa laws to allow more flexible relationships? Would you then not need to be 'married' and just use your partnership status?

[dragonwriter]

No, it doesn't. (Even if we were looking at it from the perspective of the country before same sex marriage was made legal.)

Changing all the specific legal benefits, privileges, and obligations of marriage to be "marriage or partnership" makes less sense than changing the admission criteria for marriage.

I mean, this is a tech forum, right, think about it from DRY perspective.

[Robin_Message]

Amusingly (or not), the UK went to all the effort of introducing "civil partnerships" which involved exactly all that upheaval, about a decade before just introducing equal marriage, which then led to a load more effort to allow porting a partnership into a marriage, as well as leaving partnerships in place for those who do want one or already have one.

[foldr]

I can see how someone might have asked that question in 1995.

Gay marriage is now legal in the UK. Are you suggesting that it would make "more sense" now to abolish gay marriage and try to adjust 100s of other laws and regulations to prevent any disadvantage to gay people? Surely this must be a disingenuous suggestion.

[jarek]

Rather than changing a million regulations that give status to spouses to also include partners, why not just change the definition of a spouse?