Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rhiannon on February 21, 2017, 10:06:48 AM
-
I genuinely don't understand this ruling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146
Obviously civil partnerships were originally a fudge, but now they exist surely the choice to choose this or marriage has to be opened up to straight couples? Otherwise we don't have equality.
-
The ruling is that the law is unfair but in this case the Judges cannot change it, it must be changed by Parliament.
-
The ruling is that the law is unfair but in this case the Judges cannot change it, it must be changed by Parliament.
When I published the link the ruling hadn't been explained - it was breaking news. I'm surprised the judges think the government deserves 'more time' - it seems that there was potential to rule against the government here.
-
I had no idea civil partnerships only applied to gay couples, surely heterosexuals should have that option too.
I'd never remarry but I can see the appeal of having protection in law. I hope the law is changed.
-
This is one of the few occasions that I actually agreed with Vlad, although in his case he seemed to use the argument simply as a weapon to attack his 'antitheist' creations. In my opinion, not to allow heterosexual couples to have civil partnerships is discriminatory and the law should be changed.
-
Is there, in practice rather than legally, any difference between a civil partnership and marriage? Why would an unmarried couple not wanting to get married prefer a civil partnership?
-
Is there, in practice rather than legally, any difference between a civil partnership and marriage? Why would an unmarried couple not wanting to get married prefer a civil partnership?
Leaving aside the fact that gay couples have the right to choose which straight don't, 'marriage' comes with a huge amount of baggage - in many cultures it involved subservience and ownership of the wife.
My personal view is that having been in a marriage with someone who made a mockery of all that is supposed to mean I will never be 'owned' as a wife again. But I would like the right to the same legal protection as gay couples can have through civil partnership.
-
I think this needs to be made available to all that opt for this instead of legal marriage.
As Rhi says it was a fudge created, I suspect, on the assumption that legal marriage couldn't ever be extended to same-sex couples so if it is to stay then it needs to be discrimination-free. In addition some might see a civil partnership as their preferred option, and if so then on what basis should they be denied access to something that is available to others.
The mistake was in ring-fencing civil partnerships when they were first introduced.
-
So it's just the word, "marriage", that is unacceptable?
Surely anyone sharing significant parts of their lives with others eg. having children with them, sharing property ownership or other financial affairs, should ensure a proper contractual understanding/basis for this. Marriage/civil partnership is just agreeing to a standard, template, contract. It could be called "Form ZGX64" for all that matters?
-
I think this needs to be made available to all that opt for this instead of legal marriage.
As Rhi says it was a fudge created, I suspect, on the assumption that legal marriage couldn't ever be extended to same-sex couples so if it is to stay then it needs to be discrimination-free. In addition some might see a civil partnership as their preferred option, and if so then on what basis should they be denied access to something that is available to others.
The mistake was in ring-fencing civil partnerships when they were first introduced.
Mostly agree, but a couple, or trio, or anyone really, could just draw up and agree their own contract?
-
Is there, in practice rather than legally, any difference between a civil partnership and marriage? Why would an unmarried couple not wanting to get married prefer a civil partnership?
Very little but some differences as covered here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples
-
So it's just the word, "marriage", that is unacceptable?
Surely anyone sharing significant parts of their lives with others eg. having children with them, sharing property ownership or other financial affairs, should ensure a proper contractual understanding/basis for this. Marriage/civil partnership is just agreeing to a standard, template, contract. It could be called "Form ZGX64" for all that matters?
In a sense I agree. But civil partnership and marriage are deemed to be different things for gay couples who have the right to opt for either. Why can't straight couples? The only alternative is to phase out all civil partnerships.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37834074
-
I agree that if both forms of contract exist, they should be equally available to anyone. It just seems wasteful to have both - as civil partnerships seem more up-to-date and politically correct maybe they should be kept and marriage made obsolete.
-
It's not really about political correctness - that devalues the beliefs and experiences of those who don't want marriage. And I see no reason to get rid of marriage when most people seem to want to retain it.
-
Floo,
I had no idea civil partnerships only applied to gay couples, surely heterosexuals should have that option too.
Sorry to be pedantic, but it doesn't apply only to gay couples - it applies to same sex couples. Whether they happen to indulge in the bedroom tango with each other is no-one's business but their own.
-
Rhi,
I'd never remarry...
And right there the guttering candle of my forlorn hope finally went out... :'(
-
Rhi,
And right there the guttering candle of my forlorn hope finally went out... :'(
And yet there is forever the consolation of endless logical fallacies to expose. Courage, mon brave.
-
Rhi,
And yet there is forever the consolation of endless logical fallacies to expose. Courage, mon brave.
I know Rhi, I know...thank you helping me see the light once again...
-
I don't understand this at all. What is the difference for hetero couples between marriage and CP's? What is the fuss all about, why don't they just get marriage or live together?
-
Mostly agree, but a couple, or trio, or anyone really, could just draw up and agree their own contract?
I remember a few years ago there was a test case which involved two elderly unmarried sisters who wished to form a civil partnership for the purposes of avoiding extortionate taxation when one of them died, the old ladies lost for the same reason as did the young couple. I am left with the thought that since civil partnership has no definition of consummation, there is no obligation on the civil partners to have intimate relations. Is this really what the supporters of this campaign want, to give the impression that their partnership is nothing more than a business arrangement?
Ultimately IMHO Civil Partnerships are best seen as pacemakers, speeding things up & improving the end result, but not the final winners themselves.
-
I remember a few years ago there was a test case which involved two elderly unmarried sisters who wished to form a civil partnership for the purposes of avoiding extortionate taxation when one of them died, the old ladies lost for the same reason as did the young couple. I am left with the thought that since civil partnership has no definition of consummation, there is no obligation on the civil partners to have intimate relations. Is this really what the supporters of this campaign want, to give the impression that their partnership is nothing more than a business arrangement?
Ultimately IMHO Civil Partnerships are best seen as pacemakers, speeding things up & improving the end result, but not the final winners themselves.
I don't see how they could have lost for the same reason. I would suspect they list because of being close relations.
-
From my pov marriage and CPs are "business arrangements". Relationships are between the partners and their families themselves and could be completely fluid. The reason for the contract is because society requires stability for the support of children, elderly and so on.
This is why the government chooses to reward people in 2 person officially registered legal partnerships (ie CP or marriage) with some legal and financial advantages. The case of the two sisters was unfair, as the system is unfair, though slightly less so than in the past.
The main question for society is what to do about the increasing number of cohabiting couples having children outside of any official arrangement so usually without any stability or certainty following splits.
-
I don't see how they could have lost for the same reason. I would suspect they list because of being close relations.
Just for clarification, they lost because the law as it stands is that CP's are for gay couples only.
-
Just for clarification, they lost because the law as it stands is that CP's are for gay couples only.
Can you provide a citation because the law doesn't say you have to be gay?
-
Humph,
Just for clarification, they lost because the law as it stands is that CP's are for gay couples only.
It's same sex, not gay.
-
If the case referred to is that of the Utleys then as the article below by Catherine Utley makes clear it was specifically the close familial relationship that was the issue.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/yes-civil-partnership-laws-deeply-unfair-to-relatives-like-me-and-my-sister/
-
In any case - it is clearly unfair and discriminatory.
-
TBH I don't see the point.
Civil partnership was only created because people of the same sex couldn't marry.
Well now they can.
You can make marriage what you want, you don't have to take your husbands name if you don't want to.
I see no point in keeping civil partnership
-
TBH I don't see the point.
Civil marriage was only created because people of the same sex couldn't marry.
Well now they can.
You can make marriage what you want, you don't have to take your husbands name if you don't want to.
I see no point in keeping civil marriage.
"civil marriage" - oh dear, an open invitation to the wording police!
-
Just for clarification, they lost because the law as it stands is that CP's are for gay couples only.
seems to me that if there is a law enabling two people of the same sex to enter into a legal parnnnership of some sort, then two people not of the same sex should have the same right. In the same way, of course, marriage should be available to couples of opposite or same sex. I'm not sure what I think about people like two sisters or two brothers.
-
"civil marriage" - oh dear, an open invitation to the wording police!
I was in a bit of a rush ;)
-
I was in a bit of a rush ;)
You will be subjected to a breathalyzer word test, by the Mods, to ensue you aren't over your limit in English grammar. Refusal to partake in such a test will mean a body search for band vocabulary.
-
What kind of band, Jack? Elastic, brass or hair?
-
I genuinely don't understand this ruling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146
Obviously civil partnerships were originally a fudge, but now they exist surely the choice to choose this or marriage has to be opened up to straight couples? Otherwise we don't have equality.
You would think people would grow up, wouldn't you. What a load of rubbish. THEY wanted 15 minutes of fame or rather to be in the history books. I think they would be best remaining as they are as a civil partnership like marriage to some is just the legal protection.
I wish they would find something worth fighting for like cures for the worst diseases mankind face.
-
What kind of band, Jack? Elastic, brass or hair?
:-[
A very loud free jazz one! ;D
-
Case reopened
http://www.itv.com/news/2018-05-14/heterosexual-couple-take-civil-partnership-fight-to-uks-highest-court/
-
Gay or straight, couples should be able to have a civil partnership if they so wish.
-
Case reopened
http://www.itv.com/news/2018-05-14/heterosexual-couple-take-civil-partnership-fight-to-uks-highest-court/
Yes, I hope the couple win. I can think of no logical reason why it should not be allowed.
-
I’d love to be able to face this option. I’ve heard that the Isle of Man is popular with straight British couples seeking civil partnerships as they are open to all couples there.
-
If civil partnerships were created to give same sex partners the same legal rights as married couples when they were not allowed to get married,, and now they can get married, surely civil partnerships are no longer needed and the logical thing would be to scrap them?
-
If civil partnerships were created to give same sex partners the same legal rights as married couples when they were not allowed to get married,, and now they can get married, surely civil partnerships are no longer needed and the logical thing would be to scrap them?
They aren't the same rights.
-
I presume that the Equalities Act 2010 says nothing about the matter.
-
I can't pretend to really understand the need for this.
-
I presume that the Equalities Act 2010 says nothing about the matter.
There might not be an actual need for it, but it is on principle that it should be allowed.
-
I can't pretend to really understand the need for this.
I don’t want to get married again but I’d like some legal protection should I choose to cohabit with a partner. While cps exist I’d like the right to opt for one.
-
From what I can make out, CPs cannot be dissolved because of adultery, and that's about the only major difference between them and marriages. I suppose one reason for not allowing heterosexual couples CPs is that it could mean children born to them could suffer, if adultery is "allowed".
-
From what I can make out, CPs cannot be dissolved because of adultery, and that's about the only major difference between them and marriages. I suppose one reason for not allowing heterosexual couples CPs is that it could mean children born to them could suffer, if adultery is "allowed".
Oh bless. You do know that gay couples have kids too, right?
And the state doesn’t legislate as to whether adultery is ‘allowed’ or not. Individual couples do.
-
Well isn't that lovely.
-
Well isn't that lovely.
Yes, it is.
Some couples forgive affairs and move on. Some have open relationships. And for a CP being unfaithful counts as ‘unreasonable behaviour’ which is grounds for dissolving the partnership. It’s actually a more mature way of treating adultery.
-
Well isn't that lovely
what is your issue with it?
-
I don’t want to get married again but I’d like some legal protection should I choose to cohabit with a partner. While cps exist I’d like the right to opt for one.
I guess it's about property and pension rights tho would have thought one could make a will & property is usually in both names. Also most pension schemes allow you to name whoever you want to receive it in the event of your demise.
Half the joy of cohabiting without marriage is not having legal ties & being independent.
So I still don't quite get it but am not objecting to civil partnerships for heterosexual couples if they really want them.
-
Financial protection is essential if there are children involved. It’s not just about the property rights of both partners but ensuring that the kids will be adequately housed following a breakup.
Legal ties can be easier to dissolve than emotional ones and independence has nothing to do with a piece of paper. Plenty of cohabiting couples have one partner who is controlling.
-
Thanks for that Rhiannon. I wasn't thinking of a couple with children but of a couple who have perhaps been married and had children with their spouse & now setting up home with someone else, each having financial independence. I've tried hard to word all that carefully to avoid misunderstanding, it seems I've not been as clear in some posts as I intended.
It's an interesting idea, I've always thought of civil partnerships as a kind of concession to gay couples before they were able to marry but there's obviously more to it than that.
If civil partnerships were created to give same sex partners the same legal rights as married couples when they were not allowed to get married,, and now they can get married, surely civil partnerships are no longer needed and the logical thing would be to scrap them?
That is what I thought Spud but now not sure.
-
Rhi already said that but Spud was primarily talking about adultery which apparently (I didn't know) is not grounds for dissolving a civil partnership.
It's all quite complex LR, I think I'll have a break from thinking about civil partnerships for a while :-).
-
You seem to forget gays often have children too.
Biologically, only one member of a gay partnership can have one child.
-
Funny I didn't realise that! ::)
Who said? Even if the nHS will pay for only one pregnancy(and I have no idea if that is the case), then money would pay for other pregnancies I should think.`
-
I wouldn't have thought the NHS could afford to do that at all! Thought surrogacy was a strictly private thing. My eyes are opened!
-
I wouldn't have thought the NHS could afford to do that at all! Thought surrogacy was a strictly private thing. My eyes are opened!
I think SD is referring to IVF.
-
Rhi already said that but Spud was primarily talking about adultery which apparently (I didn't know) is not grounds for dissolving a civil partnership.
It's all quite complex LR, I think I'll have a break from thinking about civil partnerships for a while :-).
Adultery is grounds, but is included under the ‘unreasonable behaviour’ grounds. In fact it is ‘sexual infudelity’ in CPs. The reason? In marriage law adultery is only penetrative sex between a man and a woman. You can’t divorce someone for adultery if they have sex with someone of the same gender. You can divorce them for unreasonable behaviour.
This makes a lot of sense as adultery isn’t always viewed as a dealbreaker. Furthermore, adultery is treated as ‘worse’ than unreasonable behaviour in marriage law at present in the sense that costs are more likely to be awarded in an adultery case, or so I’ve been told - so sleeping with a colleague is viewed as more damaging than domestic violence. It’s a joke.
-
I think SD is referring to IVF.
Possibly, I know people can have three goes of IVF on the NHS but gay couples don't have IVF ???. I'm confused now :D, thought Steve and LR were talking about gay people.
Adultery is grounds, but is included under the ‘unreasonable behaviour’ grounds. In fact it is ‘sexual infudelity’ in CPs. The reason? In marriage law adultery is only penetrative sex between a man and a woman. You can’t divorce someone for adultery if they have sex with someone of the same gender. You can divorce them for unreasonable behaviour.
This makes a lot of sense as adultery isn’t always viewed as a dealbreaker. Furthermore, adultery is treated as ‘worse’ than unreasonable behaviour in marriage law at present in the sense that costs are more likely to be awarded in an adultery case, or so I’ve been told - so sleeping with a colleague is viewed as more damaging than domestic violence. It’s a joke.
Yes it is.
-
Possibly, I know people can have three goes of IVF on the NHS but gay couples don't have IVF ???. I'm confused now :D, thought Steve and LR were talking about gay people.
Gay women often use IVF and sperm donors.
-
Pedant alert:
Biologically, only one member of a gay partnership can have one child.
May I just slightly rewrite this:
Biologically, only one member of a gay partnership will be the parent of any child.
Your use of "can" introduces the likelihood of infertility in one partner.
Back to normal service.
-
Pedant alert:
May I just slightly rewrite this:
Biologically, only one member of a gay partnership will be the parent of any child.
Your use of "can" introduces the likelihood of infertility in one partner.
Back to normal service.
What about adoption? Steve's post seems correct to me. And I don't see the link to infertility.
-
It is the use of "can" which implies a physical capability.
-
It is the use of "can" which implies a physical capability.
Which is surely more accurate than 'will'. Given that the child might be adopted how does it make pedantic sense to say biologically one of the parents will be related?
-
Which is surely more accurate than 'will'. Given that the child might be adopted how does it make pedantic sense to say biologically one of the parents will be related?
Why don't you ask Steve H? It was his assertion Biologically, only one member of a gay partnership can have one child. that I was considering. I can see no reference in his statement to adoption.
-
I'd've thought my post was perfectly clear. Even with IVF and what-have-you, a child has one father and one mother, biologically, so if a gay couple have a child, at least one of them is not biologically related to it.
-
Your original statement was clear, Steve H.
I had succumbed to pedantry and was merely considering that you had used the wrong verb: "can". I had it thumped into me (literally - our Tory masters do so love the idea of grammar schools) that "can" means physically able. Hence the conclusion that your statement meant that one partner would be infertile.
Apologies.
-
:D