Mark Gatiss News

[Arcadia]

Well, color me confused: a quick glance at Mark's Wikipedia page says he and Ian were married in 2008. But maybe it wasn't "official"?

[J.P.]

It's probably all about names. They could not be married before 2013. As I see it they want to upgrade the civil partnership to a marriage. Many people in Germany are doing this, now the gay-marriage was introduced here. Dunno, to me it's only a name, but it seems to be important for many people as a sign of real equality.

 

http://liverampup.com/entertainment/mark-gatiss-prolific-married-life-husband-reveals-gay-life-never-affected-career.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Arcadia]

I guess you're right. In that case, I'm surprised they waited so long. :d

[J.P.]

Maybe names are not so important to them either, but celebrating 10 years by it seemed a nice idea.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... to me it's only a name, but it seems to be important for many people as a sign of real equality.

Best proposal I ever heard (so sensible that of course it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming law) is to get government out of the "marriage" business altogether. Any civil ceremony (whether gay or straight) would result in a "civil union." If a couple wanted to be "married" they could have a religious ceremony as well, but it would have no more legal standing than any other religious ceremony. I assume that any pre-existing "marriages" would legally become "civil unions," regardless of whether the ceremony was civil or religious (and churches would of course be free to continue recognizing them as "marriages), but religious officials would thereafter be unable to perform legal unions.

 

In my opinion, the reason this whole brouhaha arose is that marriage is, at least here in the US, one of the very few areas where church and state are very much NOT separated. The above proposal would fix that, at least in the US. Unfortunately I doubt it would be applicable in countries where government and religion are officially intertwined.

[J.P.]

Correct me, never looked that up, but I think in Germany there are two different ceremonies and the civil one is the one that makes you a married couple by law. It was like that in Poland, until an agreement with Vatican was met to make a "hybrid" ceremony that's kept in a church but also has a legal validity. Still many don't consider the civil one a "true marriage."

[Arcadia]

 

... to me it's only a name, but it seems to be important for many people as a sign of real equality.

Best proposal I ever heard (so sensible that of course it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming law) is to get government out of the "marriage" business altogether. Any civil ceremony (whether gay or straight) would result in a "civil union." If a couple wanted to be "married" they could have a religious ceremony as well, but it would have no more legal standing than any other religious ceremony. I assume that any pre-existing "marriages" would legally become "civil unions," regardless of whether the ceremony was civil or religious (and churches would of course be free to continue recognizing them as "marriages), but religious officials would thereafter be unable to perform legal unions.

 

In my opinion, the reason this whole brouhaha arose is that marriage is, at least here in the US, one of the very few areas where church and state are very much NOT separated. The above proposal would fix that, at least in the US. Unfortunately I doubt it would be applicable in countries where government and religion are officially intertwined.

 

 

I've often thought the same thing, but people are so hung up on the term "marriage"......

[Carol the Dabbler]

... people are so hung up on the term "marriage"......

 

I know.  When I first heard about the fuss over legalization of gay marriage, I assumed that the anti's didn't want gays to be able to file joint tax returns, get spouse benefits from employers or Social Security, adopt children, etc.  But they can already do a good many of those things and nobody seems to object all that much.  I was astounded to learn that the bone of contention is simply the term "marriage" -- or perhaps I should say marriage_TM, since a certain segment of the straight population seems to be claiming dibs on it.

[J.P.]

The gay-marriage introduced in Germany just recently, now allows the pairs to adopt children not being biological children of one of the partners. Maybe there are other little adjustments, I didn't follow the developement closely as I'm rather not interested personally. :P

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Religious groups (especially those that align with traditional Judeo/Christian teachings) tend to hold that marriage is only between a man and a woman & that is how it's been since the 1st humans came to be. Anything else would be an abomination likely condemnable to eternity in hell.

[Doe]

I saw Mark in The Game of Thrones. He looked pretty good.

[J.P.]

But he always plays such sinister characters ;)

[Pseudonym]

There's a new series coming out with Mark Gatiss listed as one of the actors in it. Kit Harrington and Liv Taylor look to be the 'big names.' It's based on the Gunpowder plot so I'm guessing it'll air around the 5th of November, or at least conclude then depending how long it is - not sure if it's a one off or a mini-series. 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

There's a new series coming out with Mark Gatiss listed as one of the actors in it. Kit Harrington and Liv Taylor look to be the 'big names.' It's based on the Gunpowder plot so I'm guessing it'll air around the 5th of November, or at least conclude then depending how long it is - not sure if it's a one off or a mini-series.

 

Is that you (all grown up) in the ad that follows, Pseud?

[Pseudonym]

Is it the Game of Thrones ad that follows? That's teenager Drogon, he get's a LOT bigger than that. :D

 

It's typical me that I really like how thuggish Fawkes is. ;)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yup, apparently it is Game of Thrones.  Just as well that I've never watched it, I guess!

 

As for Gunpowder, that looks really interesting -- the conspiracy from the conspirators' point of view.  Any idea who Gatiss plays?

[Pseudonym]

Robert Cecil apparently. According to Wikipedia:

 

Cecil was the principal discoverer of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605: at what point he first learned of it, and to what extent he acted as an agent provocateur, has been a subject of controversy ever since. 

 

He's also described as having been small and hunchbacked. Another sexy Gatiss role. ;)

[J.P.]

Don't know if I'm happy about it…

[Carol the Dabbler]

[Arcadia]

What is it I'm not seeing? Or is it one of those things I'd be happier not knowing?

[Carol the Dabbler]

I suspect the latter.  Though it's merely weird, not icky.  Well, not exactly icky.

[Arcadia]

Oh goodness, yes -- my mother too!  She normally used fabric from the store, but when we kept hens, she made me a number of outfits from chicken-feed sacks.  That's not quite as desperate as it might sound, because the sacks came in three different colors (magenta, cyan, and whatever the yellowish primary-ink color is called).....

Believe it or not, it's called 'yellow.' ;) Or sometimes 'process yellow.'

[Carol the Dabbler]

As I recall, the feed-sack yellow was a bit orangey (though that was a loooong time ago, so I may be misremembering).  Is "process yellow" just a bit orangey?

[Pseudonym]

Eurgh, lady Gatiss. I'm guessing that's from the League of Gentleman?

[J.P.]

Yupp! The newest set shot.