Question 1: What are your views on abolishing the legal relationship of civil partnership once same sex couples can marry? Please choose one answer only.
I
believe civil partnership should not be abolished
because _________________
They are a valued and valuable social
institution. There are many individuals and couples, including opposite
sex couples, who would like to enter into civil partnerships. We should
dismantle the discrimination and allow all couples to enter into civll
partnerships, as we have done with marriage, not demolish a perfectly good
social institution (built at great public expense in terms of rules, procedures
and forms) in which many couples would like to live!
Question
3: What are your views about extending civil partnerships to opposite sex
couples? Please choose one answer only.
I
believe civil partnerships should be extended to opposite sex couples
because_________________
In a democratic society we should all be
equal before the law. The ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships is unjust
discrimination. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that
everyone is entitled to equal treatment and protection against
discrimination. Legalising same-sex marriage was the recognition that
LGBT people are of equal worth, equal love and have the right to equal
treatment in law. The same principle of equality applies in the case of
civil partnerships. Heterosexual couples should be able to have a civil
partnership if they wish.
Question
4: Given the choice between forming a civil partnership or living together as
an opposite sex couple, which would you personally prefer? Please choose
one answer only.
I
would prefer to form a civil partnership because_________________
I would
like to formalise, de jure, my relationship to someone I already consider to be
my de facto partner. I want to be part of an institution that is free of
patriarchal history, that formalises a relationship of equals, and that has
sought to include previously marginalised and persecuted groups, not
sought to exclude them. Civil partnership captures this as it allows a formal,
legal tie, but without the ‘baggage’ of a centuries-old tradition –
and all the gender and cultural stereotypes that marriage entails. I want
a simple civil contract between myself and my partner, in which the state
recognises us as partners, and gives us all the rights and responsibilities
that flow from that recognition. I hope that the UK government and the
general public understands why the availability of this option is important for
me and my partner as well as other same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
Question
5: Given the choice of forming a civil partnership or marrying your opposite
sex partner, which would you personally prefer? Please choose one
answer only.
I
would prefer to form a civil partnership because_________________
Again, I want
to be part of an institution that is free of patriarchal history, that
formalises a relationship of equals, and that has sought to include previously
marginalised and persecuted groups, not sought to exclude them. Civil
partnership captures this as it allows a formal, legal tie, but without
the ‘baggage’ of a centuries-old tradition – and all the gender and cultural
stereotypes that marriage entails.
Question
6: Are there any costs and benefits that are not included in this document
linked to:
COSTS:
By failing to open up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, the law will
remain discriminatory against opposite-sex couples. Those of us who want to
enter into civil partnerships will be denied that opportunity. We would be
forced to continue living together without the rights and protections that
other couples, who are able to become civil partners, are entitled to. We may
have to look abroad for civil partnerships or civil unions (to countries such
as France, which has a Pacte Civil de Solidarité, or PACS), at great cost and
inconvenience to ourselves, and with no guarantee of those unions being
recognised upon our return to the UK.
BENEFITS:
The main benefit of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples is
that there would be equality before the law - at last! By opening up the
institution, the UK would blaze a progressive trail, and be a shining light to
other countries. Opposite-sex couples would be able to choose freely whether to
cohabit, marry or enter civil partnerships, with the added protections that
these state-recognised unions would provide. The status of civil partnerships
for those who already have them would be elevated by virtue of the institution
becoming one that couples of all genders and sexualities can enter into out of
choice, and not because they have been excluded from marrying.
Question
7: Are there any detailed implementation issues that are not included in this
document linked to:
It is so simple to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples - just amend the existing law so that couples entering into the contract can be of the opposite sex. Done!
------------
If you would like to know more about the differences between marriage and civil partnership, please see this UK government document for explanation. There are several differences in the ceremonies and contracts themselves between civil marriages and civil partnerships, but not in terms of substantive rights, which is why it's preferable from my point of view. Things that stand out for me - because they reveal the lingering patriarchal undertones of the institution of marriage - are: Marriage certificates include the names of only the fathers of the parties; Civil partnership certificates include the names of both parents of the parties. Grounds for divorce in marriage: Adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent. The definition of adultery is sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage. In civil partnership: This is not a fact which could be relied on for ending a civil partnership. The beauty of a civil partnership is one gets the same rights and protections of marriage (boring but probably important stuff like pension rights!) without this baggage - WIN!
It is so simple to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples - just amend the existing law so that couples entering into the contract can be of the opposite sex. Done!
------------
If you would like to know more about the differences between marriage and civil partnership, please see this UK government document for explanation. There are several differences in the ceremonies and contracts themselves between civil marriages and civil partnerships, but not in terms of substantive rights, which is why it's preferable from my point of view. Things that stand out for me - because they reveal the lingering patriarchal undertones of the institution of marriage - are: Marriage certificates include the names of only the fathers of the parties; Civil partnership certificates include the names of both parents of the parties. Grounds for divorce in marriage: Adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent. The definition of adultery is sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage. In civil partnership: This is not a fact which could be relied on for ending a civil partnership. The beauty of a civil partnership is one gets the same rights and protections of marriage (boring but probably important stuff like pension rights!) without this baggage - WIN!