What will happen to Civil Partnership...

[mandelbrot]

... if / when gay marriage gets the constitutional green light?

I've had a bit of a bee in my bonnet over that piece of legislation ever since it came in.

I had foolishly assumed that it would grant cohabiting couples the same tax treatment as married couples (making the tax system operate consistently with the social welfare system).

But of course that wasn't the case. What they actually did was double the amount of discrimination. Now they had a situation where gay people can't get married (same as always), AND heterosexual couples can't have a civil partnership (a new piece of discrimination, also on the grounds of sexuality).

So, assuming gay marriage gets the green light sometime relatively soon, what will happen to Civil Partnership? Will it continue to be available, and if so will it only be available to same sex couples? In which case there is clear discrimination against heterosexual couples, since gay people can have either a civil partnership, or a marriage, but opposite sex couples can't... (this is the angle I approached it from. I'd like to have the choice now to enter civil partnership and get the legal and tax benefits, and then get married in another few years when we could afford whatever kind of wedding we might want at that stage.)

And what is the alternative? They say OK, no more civil partnerships from a certain date; but what then is the status of all the civil partnerships entered into up to that date? Will they offer everyone in a civil partnership the option to have their civil partnership either recognised as a marriage or annulled... the more I think about the more of a legal minefield it looks like it could be...

Has anyone else any thoughts on it?

 

[dereko1969]

You do know you're not obliged to have a big party for a wedding and the same is the case with a civil partnership?

The only discrimination is against same-sex partners at present, to state that you are discriminated as a heterosexual because you can't oblige of civil partnership when you have the option of marriage is incorrect in my view.

 

[mandelbrot]

You do know you're not obliged to have a big party for a wedding and the same is the case with a civil partnership?

Gee, you don't say! (And that'd suit me fine, but alas other people's wishes/expectations invariably impinge on my life.)

The only discrimination is against same-sex partners at present, to state that you are discriminated as a heterosexual because you can't oblige of civil partnership when you have the option of marriage is incorrect in my view.

I don't see what is incorrect.

Fact 1: Same-sex couples cannot get married (we appear to agree this is discrimination)

Fact 2: Straight couples cannot enter civil partnership (if you accept that Fact 1 is discrimination, I don't see how you can assert that Fact 2 is not also discrimination.)

A personal perception that marriage is "better" or more desirable than civil partnership is irrelevant; the 2 things are legally distinct from each other, and therefore legally there is now discrimination against both gay and straight couples.

 

[Sol28]

The Civil Partnership Bill was flawed from the outset - it was a rushed in piece of legislation to appease the LGBT community (which it doesnt) while pandering to the religious aspects of marriage.

The only correct approach would have been to define civil marriage/partnership which was open to same sex and mixed sex couples, and have the religous aspects of it handled directly by the appropriate churches. In other European countries - you marry in the eye of the law, then you choose to marry in the eye of your God as you saw fit.

Church and state need to be separated.

Now as mandlebrot mentioned - we have discrimination enshrined in law.

 

[truthseeker]

Yes there is discrimination.

There is a good link [broken link removed] that outlines a lot of the inequalities between marriage and civil partnership.

Its intolerable. We would not countenance someone not being allowed to marry because of the colour of their skin, something they were born with and cannot change, so why do we allow it because of their sexuality?

Agree with Sol28 - church and state need to be seperated.

Absolutely disgraceful that the notion of same sex marriage is even a question, it should just be there and available same as for opposite sex couples.

Mandelbrot - one question, why would you choose civil partnership over marriage (if you were allowed have civil partnership that is?).

Cant you utilise the situation as it stands by just having a civil ceremony in a registry office to take advantage of legal/tax benefits, then a wedding blessing ceremony later when you have money to throw a reception etc?