Civil Partnership Act = gender discrimination?

[mandelbrot]

OK, I'm going to keep it short and sweet as I'm not familiar with this sort of legislation at all, but my query stems from the preferential tax treatment afforded to civil partners under the new legislation.

I suppose my argument (if you could call it that!) can be summed up as follows:

• Civil partnership is not marriage.
• Civil partners are afforded the same / similar treatment under the tax code to a married couple.
• Civil partnership is only available to same sex couples.

Unmarried heterosexual couples are therefore discriminated against on grounds of gender; by not being allowed enter into a civil partnership in the first place, and as a consequence not being able to avail of the preferential tax treatment...

(Now I know a heterosexual couple has the option available to get married, but that's something different, indeed one can make the inverse argument that the state still discriminates against same sex couples by not allowing them to marry.)

Am I way off the mark here, can someone enlighten me? It's been really annoying me since the Act came out, because as a long term cohabitant I had thought I would be able to get my paws on my girlfriend's standard rate band...! The galling thing of course being the fact that while the State sees you as "man and wife" for the purposes of Social Welfare claims, means test etc..., it doesn't extend that view to the tax code, so unmarried cohabitants lose both ways.

Somehow I don't see the Equality Authority rowing in behind me on this issue...

 

[DB74]

Totally agree with you

I don't see it changing anytime soon though

The law should have been changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Then there would have been no Civil-partnership rubbish

 

[Sol28]

There is clear inequalities in this bill - hence it has not gone down too well amongst the LGBT community. We have actually legislated for inequality here. Heterosexuals can not get civil partnered, and homosexuals can not get married. Civil partnership equates to marriage in a lot a of areas, but is lacking in some fundamental issues - notably around family and childrens rights.

However regarding the OPs comment - Same-Sex couples do not get automatic rights to a partners tax credits - they must go through the formalities of a CP in exactly the same ways as he must marry. From a finance perspective the govenment departments have been ordered to equate CPs with marriage.

 

[mandelbrot]

However regarding the OPs comment - Same-Sex couples do not get automatic rights to a partners tax credits - they must go through the formalities of a CP in exactly the same ways as he must marry.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my OP, I understand that no-one gets rights to a partners tax credits without marriage / CP - my argument is simply that it's inherently discriminatory to not allow CP for heterosexual couples.

Obviously the argument about not allowing marriage for same sex couples is the flip side of the same coin, however CP is a new piece of (gender discriminating) legislation, whereas everything to do with with marriage is much older, and complicated (at least at an emotive level) by being tied in with the constitution, and the church etc...

 

[Sol28]

@mandelbrot:

Completly agree on the marriage/religious connotations aspect. From a legislation point of view - religious marriage and civil marriage should be seperated. As such - there should be no need for civil partnerships - and the legislation enacted would have been much more straight forward and unambiguous. Now we have discrimination enshrined in our legislature - both on gender and sexual orientation.

 

[WizardDr]

er .. the unmarried father has virtually no rights at all.. a constitutional scarecrow as it were ..

 

[confused21]

I must say I hadnt thought about it from that perspective but MANDELBROT you pose a very good point.

 

[Sol28]

er .. the unmarried father has virtually no rights at all.. a constitutional scarecrow as it were ..

Its been commented on in so many forums, but family law in Ireland needs to be completly readdressed. The accepted (Catholic) form of family as at the time the constitution was written is a far cry from the reality of today.