QUOTE
Thought I'd attach a definition of Civil Partnerships. Maybe something like this would be acceptable in the US where the term \"gay marriage\" is such a hot button issue.
BBC Q&A on Civil Partnerships
The British government is quite careful not to use the term marriage but at the same time conferring the same rights and benefits for same sex couples.
Not to turn this into a P&R thread, but I thought it was interesting that the media is basically this a "gay wedding" or a "gay marriage" or just a "marriage." Because the rights and responsibilities of the same-sex partnership are so close to straight marriage, it seems the media have simply dropped the pretense. Personally, that is why I am philosophically opposed to the second-tier status of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships," pragmatically I don't think it matters what we call it - the one area where I agree with the fundies is that any legal recognition of gay relationships will inevitibly lead to real marriage - because society will eventually drop the pretense of difference between them - I didn't think it would take all of a week where Britain was concerned, though.
Back to the non P&R thoughts - I am totally with canmark on the bachelor party - give me some of that kind of waiter, yum! And although all reports indicated the ceremony itself was somber and serious, with only family present, the reception was bound to be a HUGE party - wouldn't mind being there either.