Heterosexual couple lose civil partnership challenge in UK

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,526
Couldn't find an existing thread on this, UK court rejects "civil marriage" equality. Seems like the right decision, the yoke that brought the case was banging on about "patriarchy" this morning on the BBC so you can guess where her views originated from


https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/833978492178018304

BBC News (UK) Verified account 
‏@BBCNews


 Follow



 More


Heterosexual couple lose civil partnership challenge
 


ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,092
Does this mean you have to be sexually attracted to your spouse to be before marrying them? How is that enforced?
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,526

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,914
Zoo, weak attempt at trolling thread+ píss poor OP, F-.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,928
Are civil partnerships still available in the UK? :confused:
Yes. In reality they should have been done away with when marriage became available.

Legally this seems like the right decision. But from a policy perspective, it's hard to see what purpose civil partnerships serve in the UK, but to the extent that they do serve a purpose, that purpose should be open to straight couples as well.

Far better to do away with them. And if there is demand for an institution that stops somewhere short of marriage but still affords some protections, that could be created but should be open to both straight and gay couples.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,526
Yes. In reality they should have been done away with when marriage became available.

Legally this seems like the right decision. But from a policy perspective, it's hard to see what purpose civil partnerships serve in the UK, but to the extent that they do serve a purpose, that purpose should be open to straight couples as well.

Far better to do away with them. And if there is demand for an institution that stops somewhere short of marriage but still affords some protections, that could be created but should be open to both straight and gay couples.
that's fair enough, but the civil marriage wasn't rolled out with the vast majority in mind, it was a niche arrangement. It would seem like the wrong place to start.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

Civil partnership should be available to all or available to none. Personally I see no need for two separate institutions.
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,092
What difference is there between a heterosexual couple getting a civil partnership and a straight couple who do not have a sexual relationship but a mere partnership getting married in a civil registry?
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,526
Civil partnership should be available to all or available to none. Personally I see no need for two separate institutions.
if there should be 2 available to all then there should be a hundred? unlike gender, this is a social construct.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,526
What difference is there between a heterosexual couple getting a civil partnership and a straight couple who do not have a sexual relationship but a mere partnership getting married in a civil registry?
there is nothing to prove before hand, there are certain grounds for annulment after the fact.
 
O

Oscurito

Yes. In reality they should have been done away with when marriage became available.

Legally this seems like the right decision. But from a policy perspective, it's hard to see what purpose civil partnerships serve in the UK, but to the extent that they do serve a purpose, that purpose should be open to straight couples as well.

Far better to do away with them. And if there is demand for an institution that stops somewhere short of marriage but still affords some protections, that could be created but should be open to both straight and gay couples.
I agree that there should be no distinction between how straight and gay couples are treated.

Civil partnerships had to be gotten rid of here once the marriage equality referendum was passed in 2015. In the Bunreacht, the State "pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage" so giving people marriage-lite when they should be going for the full nuptials was always going to be a no-no.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

if there should be 2 available to all then there should be a hundred? unlike gender, this is a social construct.
I agree - if you have one institution some will decide it's not for them and want a second, if you have a second some will decide neither is for them and will want a third.............and on and on.
Have one institution and if that doesn't suit them let them draw up their own contract.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
Ireland ceased giving out civil partnerships in 2015 and commuted existing ones to marriage. Why would the UK not just do the same, seems silly to allow a gay-only institution remain in a post marriage equality world.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,928
I agree that there should be no distinction between how straight and gay couples are treated.

Civil partnerships had to be gotten rid of here once the marriage equality referendum was passed in 2015. In the Bunreacht, the State "pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage" so giving people marriage-lite when they should be going for the full nuptials was always going to be a no-no.
Not sure that's quite the case. For example, the law changed the rights and responsibilities associated with co-habitation. I'm not sure that would (necessarily) be unconstitutional because it gave unmarried couples certain rights or benefits or obligations (whether it's desirable is a different matter).

Similarly, if you were to create a sort of 'registered partnership' that allowed people to have an official relationship which permitted, for example, easier access to decision-making, end of life decisions etc but not the full rights and obligations of marriage, I'm not sure that would be unconstitutional. There's certainly an argument there, but I think there's a good counter-argument.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,928
Ireland ceased giving out civil partnerships in 2015 and commuted existing ones to marriage. Why would the UK not just do the same, seems silly to allow a gay-only institution remain in a post marriage equality world.
The UK's consideration of the issue is set out here.
 
O

Oscurito

Not sure that's quite the case. For example, the law changed the rights and responsibilities associated with co-habitation. I'm not sure that would (necessarily) be unconstitutional because it gave unmarried couples certain rights or benefits or obligations (whether it's desirable is a different matter).

Similarly, if you were to create a sort of 'registered partnership' that allowed people to have an official relationship which permitted, for example, easier access to decision-making, end of life decisions etc but not the full rights and obligations of marriage, I'm not sure that would be unconstitutional. There's certainly an argument there, but I think there's a good counter-argument.
It is the case. That's why (civil partnerships) CPs were only ever available to same-sex couples pending the change to the Constitution that allowed same sex couples access to marriage. CPs gave same sex couples many of the privileges of marriage but once marriage became available, leaving CPs on the table would be have been a de facto undermining of the the institution itself.
 

Finbar10

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
2,556
Interestingly, it seems it was a close decision. In the BBC report linked to, it says that:
the couple had lost by the "narrowest of margins" as all three judges accepted that there was a potential breach of their human rights ... "However, her fellow judges were prepared to let the government have a little more time and so the case was lost on that issue alone."
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top