Dave B wrote:Let's be British about this, eh, what!
All right. We could just take "pacsee", and use it for both sexes, like employee, nominee, referee, trainee, licensee, etc. But no, I wasn't being serious. I just think it's fortunate for the French that it's worked out that way. We do need our own terminology.
Dave B wrote:I thought the modern thing was not to "genderise" titles, why not "consort"? It has no gender and though it is usually used for the partner of a monarch it can be used for any spouse.
Oh, but it's an awful-sounding word. And the verb "to consort" is already in use to mean "to hang about with", especially in the context of thieves, vagabonds and other disreputable characters.
Dave B wrote:Emma, I take what you said to mean that, a) civil marriages have to be "solemnised" and assume this means they need the "OK" of a church to give them legal status
Ooh, no. They just need both parties to make a verbal statutory declaration, rather than just sign a written one. It's all in that other thread I linked to, and it's different in Scotland than it is in England and Wales. It probably seems a trivial thing, but it bothers me.
Dave B wrote:and, b) like genders cannot get married and unlike genders cannot have a civil partnership?
Yes, sort of. Although I'd say "same-sex couples" rather than "like genders", because the state is interested in a rather crude definition of sex, rather than the more nuanced gender. A transsexual can only marry someone of the opposite sex to the one listed on his or her birth certificate. But transsexuals can get new birth certificates if they are granted a full gender recognition certificate by the Gender Recognition Panel. So, currently, a transsexual can marry someone of the same sex, provided he or she hasn't obtained a new birth certificate stating his or her new sex. Anyway, David Cameron, and the Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone have said that same-sex couples will be able to get married from 2015. But it's not at all clear, yet, what's going to happen with civil partnerships. Will they continue to be an option for same-sex couples only? Or will they be abolished? Or will they be offered as an option for everybody? So far, they're not saying.
Nick wrote:Ema
How I hate the expression "get" married! Grrr! How about, "marry" or "be married"? Much nicer!
Those options might be "nicer", but in many contexts (not all) they sound archaic. "I do not intend to marry" sounds like something a Jane Austen heroine might say. "I do not intend to be married" might work in certain contexts, but on its own sounds rather peculiar. "Get married" is a perfectly correct phrasal verb, and objecting to it is just word snobbery.
Emma (or Ema, or Em, if you prefer)