Okay, so I know Civil Partnerships are a step in the right direction and we should all thank our lucky Gay stars we have them...or should we? Since 2005 gays can have the big fancy day with the cake and the rings and the crying auntie. But is it all its cracked up to be? In a lot of ways Civil Partnerships are amazing things and a massive step working towards equality in the UK, but some believe these partnerships were designed to keep gays happy, designed to look like it has equal footing to marriage, when actually it doesn't. There are three main differences between those hetro's and us homo's.
1. The Names and terminology. The government asked for suggestions of a more attractive term than "registered partner". A number of marital terms were proposed - civil spouse, spouse, husband, wife, co-husband, co-wife, MATE - Married and Together - but these (along with the exotic Lebensabschnittsmitfahrer - which means; fellow companion on this part of my journey through life, hands down the best I think you'll agree!) were rejected. Instead the term 'civil partner' has been used. Although a marital term is not used for the partners, familial terms are used for others related to the partners so the distinction is not as clear as it initially appears. This terminology quite obviously isn't recognised internationally...even my nanna doesn't quite grasp it!
2. How you do it. The partnership is entered not by making vows but by signing a document and there is no need for a formal ceremony (although such can be arranged and the document can be read out as well as signed). Marridge is a speak out loud thing. Maybe so God can hear? Where as God might prefer the gruff ladies and the fairy boys to do it with a bit more hush?? Civil Partnership law also specifically states you cant hold it in religious building...Not that any of us would get married in Dibley, but the disfunctional hetro's down the street have the choice. We do not.
3 Dissolution of a civil partnership (Aka divorce) There are four grounds for dissolution below... ^The other partners unreasonable behavior ^Separation for a period of two years, with the other parties consent to the dissolution of the partnership ^Separation for a period of five years ^Desertion by the other partner for a minimum of two years
Pretty similar to our heterosexual divorce I hear you cry. But, one thing missing, there is NO ADULTERY GROUND available to people wanting to dissolve a civil partnership due to their partners infidelity this is because the legal definition of adultery relates specifically to heterosexual couples. In this situation a dissolution based on the other persons unreasonable behavior could apply but this is at the courts discretion... ...AKA There is no explicit reference to the partnership being a sexual relationship. In fact the government said this..'Communication has a specific meaning within the context of heterosexual relationships and it would not be possible or desirable to read this across to same-sex civil partnerships.' ...AKA They cant define what it is to consummate a civil partnership, or better still they think they don't need too. ...AKA we don't have sex!...Funny I don't know what all this talk of dams and condoms as about...who needs it, i'm a virgin, go figure! Someone needs to shove a dildo up Tony Blairs bum!
Most of this taken from.....http://civilpartnershiplaw.com/index.php?id=150
Lets talk about it!
Love Ema x
(p.s. Anyone know what the laws are for trans folk wanting to enter into marridge/civil partnerships? Can they?)
The whole institution of traditional marriage and weddings is riddled with anachronistic nonsense I hate, so I'm kind of glad civil partnerships are simple and modern. And I think they kind of have to have the religious ban for now just because the church kicks up enough fuss about it as it is without aggravating it further - just look at America's own gay marriage debate. The government was smart in circumventing that. As for the dissolution thing, I'd consider that 'unreasonable behaviour' pretty much includes cheating. Oh, and to the best of my knowledge, transsexual people can get married or enter a civil partnership, at least if they're undergoing/have undergone treatment, and got themselves recognised as their real gender by law. The transgendered/otherwise gender-varian are kind of a grey area - if you're a straight transman wanting to marry the girl of your dreams in a church, but you haven't gone down the road of hormones and surgery, you'd have to settle for a civil partnership, for example. And goodness knows what happened if you then transitioned afterwards...
Re: point 2. You're comparing marriage in a church with civil partnerships. Civil partnership and civil marriage ceremonies are very similar, as far as I can tell from the government website... unless they are hiding something. Christian marriage is a sacrament, a rite of passage and so comes with a whole load of traditions and rituals (the reading of the vows, the rings, etc). I'm really not so sure about other religions marriage traditions, but I'm guessing they all have individual customs and rituals for marriage. When you marry/partner up (...) at a registry office (or anywhere else, in the presence of a registrar), it cuts all of this out and you can have vows, readings, music or whatever you like.
I agree with Tim, that the Government has done a good thing with the Civil Partnerships. The issue in point 2 is with the institutions of religion. A whole different kettle of fish.
I read this gorgeous little anecdote a couple of days ago on an internet blog i stumbled on regarding andy worhol, actually i'll paste the section i liked:
"There was a class of [dutch] schoolchildren, the teacher was teaching them about Warhol and said "He was gay and a lot of people in America donīt like that. In fact, you still canīt marry there if youīre gay!" and the kids went "WHY NOT??? Thatīs stupid." " - from http://electricwitch.livejournal.com/55579.html
So yeah, at least we're not like America BUT, if only we could be like HOLLAND!
I find the whole divorce thing quite interesting... I worked for a County Court in the divorce section over the summer and found out a lot about it. Where I worked didn't actually do civil partnership "divorces" (there are only about 6 courts in the country that do). But I was horrified when they told me that 'adultery' only refers to heterosexual relationships, and if one partner cheats with somone of the same sex it has to be filed as 'unreasonable behaviour'. So for civil partnerships they just left out the whole 'adultery' bit. But the thing I don't get is why it can't be classed as adultery if a homosexual couple (civil partners) get "divorced" because one of them cheated with the opposite sex... Surely that WOULD be adultery since it refers to heterosexual relations?
I did actually see a petition where the husband was filing for divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour because he caught his wife in bed with another woman, and was 'mentally traumatised' or some such bollocks. Gave me a bit of a giggle!
"There was a class of [dutch] schoolchildren, the teacher was teaching them about Warhol and said "He was gay and a lot of people in America donīt like that. In fact, you still canīt marry there if youīre gay!" and the kids went "WHY NOT??? Thatīs stupid." " - from http://electricwitch.livejournal.com/55579.html
So yeah, at least we're not like America BUT, if only we could be like HOLLAND!
Yet another reason why I want to move out to that area! Did you see the Davina McCall sex ed programme?
The whole institution of traditional marriage and weddings is riddled with anachronistic nonsense I hate, so I'm kind of glad civil partnerships are simple and modern.
Personally, I think they do have to do something about the "differences" between the two, either by making both options open to heterosexual or homosexual couples, or by abolishing "traditional" marriage and replace it with civil partnerships for both straight and gay couples. And yes they do need to do something about the words they use! I very much agree Tim, "marriage" is so bound up with some strange stuff. On reflection, when myself and my companion had a civil partnership, it was quite a relief to have a ceremony which wasn't tied up to those other quaint associations of marriage, like heterosexism and patriarchy.
i thought about writing a paper about how UK is running behind on granting gay rights comparing to some other commonwealth, ie canada, south africa, even new zealand. (but i am not writing this paper cause i procrasinated too much)
however i must say, civil partnership grants a lot of right to same sex couples already. as some of you might have heard, someone suggested to abolish marriage altogether (to avoid same sex couples arguing inequality of rights and benefits).
undoubtedly, there are a lot of failing marriages these days, maybe the marriage system does not really work. lets not go in there. a lot of people these days see the majority of the function of marriage is to confer rights, which civil partnership does so too.
south africa though passed same sex marriages, but discrimination is still very bad. new zealand passed civil union (which is open to both same sex or opposite sex couple), that is to create another form of union for whom cannot or dont want to enter into marriage. however marriage itself still reserved to opposite sex.
take european countries for instances. the scans and dans and dutch and bels, though they have been granting civil union and marriage for years, even dans and dutch and bels gave the name of "marriage" but in fact there are some rights eg adoption right that is inequal. though UK is not giving the name, but the confer almost all the rights, probably more than dan bel dutch, so which would you choose.
to conclude what i say, its not the best we can get, but its as good as we can get for the moment, i suppose.
The issue is not that religious authorities do not permit same-sex unions/marriage - quite a few of them do. The inequality lies in the fact that while heterosexual religious ceremonies are recognised for the purpose of registering a marriage, same-sex ceremonies aren't and must have a separate civil registration. The clear implication is that same-sex unions are simply a bureaucratic matter and should not be acknowledged as part of the same tradition of life-long vows, family-forming and community-building. It is giving support to the notion that LGBT people aren't involved in religious life and their partnerships are about inheritance laws etc rather than spiritual commitment to each other. Just as straight people get married for all sorts of reasons, so do queers and we ought to be able to have those diverse values recognised equally.
We do, however its small steps at a time, when civil partnerships first came about there was alot of inequalities between them and marriages with regards to peoples rights... its took a couple of years but the main flaws have pretty much been ironed out, so stuffs going in the right direction :o) eventually it'll all end up on a level playing field.
Mind you this country aint 2 bad for our legal rights... however there is still alot to do to change hearts and minds, alot of this could be resolved if they added LGBT stuff in2 education like PSHE classes etc. No good having the rights if people are still ignorant of the issues and have major misconceptions about LGBT people in general.
__________________
Nic // LGBT Society Events Officer 05/06 // LGBT Assembly Chair 05/06 - NUS LGBT Society of the year 2006(winners) //
LUU honarary life member - Awarded 2006 // LGBT Assembly Mentor 2006 -Onwards.
Contact me at nicturner_85@hotmail.com
I know this has probably been said a million times before but I think Civil Partnerships are an absolute insult!
I will not happy, and neither should any other member of the LGBT community, until we are allowed to MARRY the person we love with all the rights and priviledges granted to a hetero couple.
By giving us theis second rate legal recognisation the government is saying that our love is not as serious or is not as worthy as heterosexual love. A lot of people are saying it was a step in the right direction, but why couldn't marriage law simply have been extended to include same sex couples rather than creating Civil Partnerships???
You cannot compare us to America - that country is dominated by ignorant, backward christian extremists. People in the UK are quite happy for gay people to have equal rights.
Paul Martin, the former PM of Canada, said of civil unions, "Equal but different is NOT equality." I totally agree.
A lot of people are saying it was a step in the right direction, but why couldn't marriage law simply have been extended to include same sex couples rather than creating Civil Partnerships???
Because the religious extremists would have had a paddy. A civil partnership is a marriage by another name to avoid all the fuss - it's the same bloody thing. It's a smart move that gets around all that shouting they're having over it in the States.
To be honest, I don't see why people bicker so much over naming. We have the legal benefits, and that's all that matters - if we have parity in law it doesn't matter whether you call it a civil partnership, a marriage, or a banana.
Compared to a lot of countries, the UK is really good when it comes to gay rights. Compared even to much of the Western world, we've got equality in law or we're very close to achieving it. Changing social attitudes is another matter, but things are getting better and better on that front too.
Because the religious extremists would have had a paddy. A civil partnership is a marriage by another name to avoid all the fuss - it's the same bloody thing. It's a smart move that gets around all that shouting they're having over it in the States.
What religious extremists?! The muslims?! The UK is a secular nation and our population is largely non-religious. There wouldn't have been any real protest. I think it has more to do with not so progressive elements in the Government.
Because the religious extremists would have had a paddy. A civil partnership is a marriage by another name to avoid all the fuss - it's the same bloody thing. It's a smart move that gets around all that shouting they're having over it in the States.
What religious extremists?! The muslims?! The UK is a secular nation and our population is largely non-religious. There wouldn't have been any real protest. I think it has more to do with not so progressive elements in the Government.
There's Christian extremists in the UK, y'know. Remember the protests about Jerry Springer: The Opera? Or the way the Church of England still can't make its mind up on gay bishops? (And yeah, there are homophobic Muslim extremists too, but in smaller numbers, I think.) We're nowhere near as bad as the US, but there still are plenty of people in this nation who use religion as an excuse for prejudice, and marriage does have a specifically religious connotation to it. Ideally, I'd like it if straight people could have civil partnerships too, rather than us having proper marriages, 'cause I'm sure there's plenty of secular heterosexuals who'd like a ceremony without the baggage.
Its not about comparing between UK to USA or other countries. you cannot expect UK to be the forerunner of all the rights, can you? its great to have the spirits to fight for rights, but don't be so irrational. actually i know a lot of people (who doesnt have any will to figh for gay rights, they would say, we are better than iraq, saudi or egypt where they kill gays, we are already grateful we are not prosecuted, which i am ridiculed)
you have underestimated the lobbying power of the christian groups, they have people in the houses, they have money.
even if referrendum says 50%+ (which i doubt) people agree marriage should extend to same sex couple, i doubt there are enough pro-gay votes in the houses to put the act through
be politically realistic.
and be politically correct, dont relate muslims to extremist.
US is in a strange situation, some state recognised some rights, some states have amended their state constitution to bar same sex relationship recognised.
that's what new zealand did, they passed something called civil union, that allows two individuals (regardless of their gender) to enter a relationship, that grants most of the marriage right without the name "marriage"
I heared lev use a good analogy on this... before gays weren't aloud on the bus... now we're alloud on but we have to sit at the back... true it's no different, we still get to go where we like and it's just as comfortable a ride, but still... why do we have to sit at the back?
Segregation in public transport or buildings or any physical intitutions is obviously wrong, then why is it ok in legal institutions? Why is anything ok just to keep extremists sweet? Since when does a progressive agenda need to keep them happy?
i didnt know we couldnt ride the bus oops all this time iv been sitting right at the front too.
sorry couldnt resist
but your right why is it ok to argue that one group should get more rights than another but i have a great solution get rid of marriage seriously get rid of it tell all the hetros they are now civil partners because due to the high level of infidelity and divorce we have decided that they are infact unworthy of this institution and from now on only virgins can marry and it can only be held in a church no any where else no registery office or beach in cancoon just a church
im basing htis idea on the trams in black pool they could never get people to sit at the back because you can just spin the seats round that way even when your at the back your actually at the front
