Ms Steinfeld, 38, said: “The difference between marriage and civil partnership is that civil partnership is a modern social institution that is, except for this aspect, free of all of this old school patriarchal baggage.
“There is no place for something like this within civil partnerships.
“It stigmatises children based on their parents’ relationship status – and that just seems so anachronistic.”
The problem being that kiddies born before a marriage/civil partnership are regarded as illegitimate – for all he difference that makes these days – and those born after one are not.
At which point Ms Steinfeld might want to ponder on the logical and linguistic connections between legally recognised relationship and legitimate……
Technically, if you get married after having a child, the registry office can re-do the birth certificate such that the child appears to be issued from a married couple.
the Legitimacy Act requires parents to re-register the birth if they subsequently get married, even if the father is already on the birth certificate.
So this also applies to people who get married, so it isn’t ‘stigmatising’ them because of the ‘civil partnership’ aspect.
These people “want equality” and they simultaneously want preferential treatment. Let’s hope the Government shrugs and tells them to fuck off.
Anyway, 100/30 on that they are Remainers, so why aren’t they respecting the Law? It’s a disgrace.
Perhaps they want the rights of marriage with none of its responsibilities. Because that’s their human right and it’s diskrimunashun not to and stop judging me waaaaa!!!!
As a former teacher I can confirm that children can be proper little bastards even if their parents are married.
“It’s all just so anachronistic,” said Mx. Steinfeldblatberg as she stepped out of the chuppah, lit the menorah and gave Rabbi Dov Chutzpah, Chairman of Open Borders for England, a cheque for B’nai B’rith.
Not anachronistic and patriarchal enough to ‘partner’ with a gentile though apparently…
“the Legitimacy Act requires parents to re-register the birth if they subsequently get married, even if the father is already on the birth certificate”: does anyone here know the reason for that? Some arcane aspect of Common Law?
Anyhoo, the answer to their pouting and preening is to kick them up the arse.
This caught my eye below Tim’s story:
“ US ambassador defends moustache as South Koreans bristle at ‘disrespectful’ facial hair“
‘free of all of this old school patriarchal baggage’
Society is an invention of the wimmins. This is MATRIARCHAL baggage. Destroying any sympathy I had for them.
Jews4Jesus – Well, obvs. It’s as stereotypically liberal-atheist-Jewish as a Scotsman being drunk is quintessentially Caledonian.
I’m struck by how quaint her Portnoyesque complaints are tho – sounds like reheated feminist boilerplate from the 1970’s.
What’s she gonna do next – burn her bra in protest at the Vietnam war?
Also, I feel a profound sense of Christian pity for her poor
husbandvictimpartner. Imagine being bound to that raging hambeast for the rest of your natural or until she decides to be a lezzer and runs off with your house and money.In the picture used to illustrate the article, I feel sure he was blinking “H-E-L-P” in Morse code. No wonder Philip Roth was obsessed with sweet-tempered shiksas.
Really Steve, ‘Hambeast’? That should be ‘Brisketbeast’.
Jonathan – quod scripsi, scripsi.
At least the Prodigal Son could escape back to his Dad’s place. That poor bugger will be feeding her for life.
Defence of the Christian basis of Western culture
TCW’s holiday reads: Paglia, giving art both barrels
Ms Steinfeld, please jump of a pier
Who’s to blame for this alt-marriage buggery – why Blair as usual
Civil partnerships have been around since 1837. A marriage not conducted in a religious setting *IS* a civil partnership.
@jgh
Pendant. Try telling Blair, Cameron, May etc that