Heterosexual partnership?

[cleef]

A heterosexual couple have been refused permission to register for a civil partnership.
Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle said they want to challenge "discriminatory" UK laws which restrict civil partnerships to same-sex couples.

They plan legal action after their application was denied at Islington Register Office, north London.

A spokesman for Islington Council said the pair's request was refused because "the council must follow the law".

UK law only permits heterosexual couples to marry and only permits same-sex couples to form civil partnerships

Couples in a civil partnership have the right to the same legal treatment across a range of matters as a married couple - including inheritance, pension, life assurance and maintenance rights.

However civil partnerships can only be conducted by registrars, not members of the clergy, and the partnership cannot legally be called a "marriage".

Mr Freeman and Miss Doyle, both 25, from Islington, have been in a relationship for four years.

Mr Freeman said: "It would be lovely to formalise our relationship but we are completely turned off by the whole institution of marriage because it discriminates against gay people."

He added: "We think gay people should be able to have a standard marriage and straight people should be able to have a civil partnership."
Miss Doyle said: "We want a choice and all other couples should also have a choice, irrespective of their sexuality."

Their bid was supported by human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
Mr Tatchell said: "The ban on heterosexual civil partnerships is heterophobic. It is disciminatory and offensive."

He added: "I applaud their challenge to this unjust legislation."
An Islington Council spokesman said: "The law dictates that a civil partnership is only for couples of the same sex.
"The council must follow the law, of course, and so we have not been able to accept Mr Freeman and Ms Doyle's application for a civil partnership." #

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8376937.stm

Anybody else see this? Whats your take on it?

Should civil partnerships be exclusive to gay people?

I dont see why they shouldnt be allowed, all it seems to highlight for me is the fact that you are forced to have a different type of ceremony just because of your sexuality

[Il Medico]

Yep. Poor straight people, always being discriminated against due to the appalling heterophobia of modern society. :rolleyes:

[Revy]

The fact that gay people can only have a "civil partnership" and not a marriage is discriminatory itself.

it's a joke, how can Labour pat itself on the back about "equality for gay people" when it's not actually equal.

Nobody gives a damn about the word marriage except for stuffy homophobes. Gay people would probably be just as happy if it were universally called civil partnership for everyone.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

it's just the name of the legal contract, isn't it?
aren't there more pressing matters for us to concern ourselves with?

[Bilan]

Yep. Poor straight people, always being discriminated against due to the appalling heterophobia of modern society. :rolleyes:

I only skimmed this, but weren't they pissed off that the legislation discriminated against gay couples?

[ZeroNowhere]

Mr Freeman said: "It would be lovely to formalise our relationship but we are completely turned off by the whole institution of marriage because it discriminates against gay people."Heh. Well played.

All in all, a pretty interesting idea, and a pretty amusing way to get the law to satirise itself.


I only skimmed this, but weren't they pissed off that the legislation discriminated against gay couples?The reason you noticed this is that it was bolded, so it's quite hard not to notice when reading the OP.

[Dimentio]

Churches should not have the right to institute any contracts between two people. Keep marriage, but deprive it from all legal obligations and make it just a title. The only way to formalise a relationship should be a civil union partnership.

[counterblast]

Churches should not have the right to institute any contracts between two people. Keep marriage, but deprive it from all legal obligations and make it just a title. The only way to formalise a relationship should be a civil union partnership.

Or here is a novel idea; lets not have ANY way to "formalize" relationships. Lets keep the benefits for single people and people with multiple partners the same as the benefits for monogamous coupled people.

[Il Medico]

I only skimmed this, but weren't they pissed off that the legislation discriminated against gay couples?
Go down a few sentences and you'll see what got my goat.

Mr Tatchell said: "The ban on heterosexual civil partnerships is heterophobic. It is disciminatory and offensive."

[bcbm]

i think its pretty clear the whole thing is aimed more at how ridiculous and discriminatory it is to ban gays from marriage and has nothing really to do with hetero couples.

[Bilan]

The reason you noticed this is that it was bolded, so it's quite hard not to notice when reading the OP.

Uh...okay. I'm aware that I noticed that, but thank you for letting me know - just incase I didn't realise. :lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

Or here is a novel idea; lets not have ANY way to "formalize" relationships. Lets keep the benefits for single people and people with multiple partners the same as the benefits for monogamous coupled people.

...but not all people want the benefits provided by marriage. Those unmarried people that break up sometimes are able to take advantage of the fact that they dont have to surrender 50% of assets or child access. It could be argued that if the law were to intervene, it would undermine their liberties in choosing their own post-relationship settlements.

Besides which, there is a grey area in what actually constitutes a 'relationship'. A one night stand, or series of liasons which could well conceive children does not constitute one. Nor would i want a society where i was forced to surrender half my assets or time to a child that i didnt particularly care for by a court for indulging a one night stand.

Marriage in that sense serves a practical purpose in that it legally protects the personal property rights and child custody rights of both parties in the event of a seperation, but for those that want them. Which for the record, i fully believe should be afforded to both straight and gay couples.

[ellipsis]

Heterosexuality is counter revolutionary!

[Il Medico]

Heterosexuality is counter revolutionary!
Please don't troll on the main board.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Marriage in that sense serves a practical purpose in that it legally protects the personal property rights and child custody rights of both parties in the event of a seperation, but for those that want them. Which for the record, i fully believe should be afforded to both straight and gay couples.

You've chosen only one thing that marriage can procure and used ti to elaborate your point, but that's really reudctionist.

There are many things, especially in America, that marriage can procure that *everyone* should be entitled too. Domestic Partner Benefits, citizenship, tax exemptions. domestic partner health insurance..

Marriage can, and does open for many adventages. What saddens me is in full knowledge of this, the mainstream gay and lesbian movements fight for gay marriage and heterosexual civil partnerships. Instead of universal access to the benefits marriage can bring.

This particualr case of a heterosexual couple seeking to challenge civil partnerships shows what a farce the whole compromise with civil partnerships is. I tihnk in the absract civil partnerships are better because they lack the religious connotations, there's no sense of 'ownership' involved etc. But it's still some warped idea that only by going via the State can you validate your partnership.

[RedAnarchist]

Go down a few sentences and you'll see what got my goat.

Tatchell is homosexual, so he isn't speaking from a heterosexual perspective.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Tatchell is homosexual, so he isn't speaking from a heterosexual perspective.

It's still bollocks though. This sentence prooves how much of an idiot Tatchell can be.

State endorced heterophobia? Please :confused:

[ComradeMan]

Although this sounds all very noble what's the point? I think there are far more important issues in the world than picking over terminology to be honest.

If a couple (hetero) get "married" in a civil service at the registry office- as many do, with no religious connotations whatsoever then what is the problem?

At the end of the day whether you call it marriage or a civil partnership it's the same thing.

[RedAnarchist]

It's still bollocks though. This sentence prooves how much of an idiot Tatchell can be.

State endorced heterophobia? Please :confused:

Of course it is. The state as a whole looks out for those who are privileged in society (whites, males, heterosexuals, rich people etc).

[Dimentio]

Or here is a novel idea; lets not have ANY way to "formalize" relationships. Lets keep the benefits for single people and people with multiple partners the same as the benefits for monogamous coupled people.

Yes, you are right there.

But the problem is that we are living in a society where people who get disconnected from their income could end up on the street. If one partner has a well-paid job and the other is working from home, then we have a diskrepancy. And when children are involved, we need some kind of system which goes beyond the individual.

As long as there is a capitalist society, there is a need for some kind of (voluntary) relationship regulations to provide for the financially weaker partner in a relationship.

When capitalism is abolished, marriages, partnerships and similar arrangements would lose all economic meaning.

[mel]

Yes, you are right there.

But the problem is that we are living in a society where people who get disconnected from their income could end up on the street. If one partner has a well-paid job and the other is working from home, then we have a diskrepancy. And when children are involved, we need some kind of system which goes beyond the individual.

As long as there is a capitalist society, there is a need for some kind of (voluntary) relationship regulations to provide for the financially weaker partner in a relationship.

When capitalism is abolished, marriages, partnerships and similar arrangements would lose all economic meaning.

Exactly this. Depending on exactly the structure of the society, it may have non-economic meanings, however. (Religious, symbolic, and there may still be some need to have a legal recognition of relationships dependent on the childcare situation).

While the economic factors will no longer be an issue, legal recognition of partnerships when children are involved will smooth the negotiation of care arrangements. There's also the issues of power of attorney (who is allowed to make decisions for you while you are incapacitated) and hospital visitation privileges, etc.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Love it.

[Canadian Red]

Yep. Poor straight people, always being discriminated against due to the appalling heterophobia of modern society. :rolleyes:
I hope you realise that this is indeed a case of discrimination. I'm not to fond of marriage myself as I see it as more of a religious matter than a legal one. I would much rather have a civil partnership than a marriage anyways. Then again gay marriage is legal here. Besides as I stated on a previous thread, sexual labels are a social construct and are useless. Stupid labels like "gay,straight and bi" only further the divide in humanity. Saying "poor straight people" in a argument for gay marriage is the same as using the term "white people" in a argument against racialism.

[counterblast]

I hope you realise that this is indeed a case of discrimination. I'm not to fond of marriage myself as I see it as more of a religious matter than a legal one. I would much rather have a civil partnership than a marriage anyways. Then again gay marriage is legal here. Besides as I stated on a previous thread, sexual labels are a social construct and are useless. Stupid labels like "gay,straight and bi" only further the divide in humanity. Saying "poor straight people" in a argument for gay marriage is the same as using the term "white people" in a argument against racialism.

Oh somehow I knew it was only a matter of time before someone appropriated the Civil Rights Movement in this thread...

:rolleyes:





...but not all people want the benefits provided by marriage. Those unmarried people that break up sometimes are able to take advantage of the fact that they dont have to surrender 50% of assets or child access. It could be argued that if the law were to intervene, it would undermine their liberties in choosing their own post-relationship settlements.

Besides which, there is a grey area in what actually constitutes a 'relationship'. A one night stand, or series of liasons which could well conceive children does not constitute one. Nor would i want a society where i was forced to surrender half my assets or time to a child that i didnt particularly care for by a court for indulging a one night stand.
I didn't suggest we apply marriage laws to non-married people; I simply suggested we implement a system where married coupled people, single people, and people with more than one partner have the same social and economic standing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I didn't suggest we apply marriage laws to non-married people; I simply suggested we implement a system where married coupled people, single people, and people with more than one partner have the same social and economic standing.You have the power to do this? Well hop to it then.

Seriously, I agree with this, but it essentially would take a revolution just to pass this kind of overhaul. In the US most working class families with 2 parents are dual-income houses; I would have to share a room with a roommate if I was no longer in a long-term relationship because of rents; in a country with no health care and poor care for the elderly, who would not be somewhat afraid of dieing alone or growing old by yourself without kids or a spouse?

So the system already pushes people towards "the family" for economic reasons. There are also the emotional reasons: in an alienated society like capitalism, it's just isolating and hard to not have some kind of constant and trusted relations.

The heterosexual nuclear family is not some random throwback or quaint tradition, it has been shaped and supported by the bourgeois as a way to maintain the social order. For example, instead of having universal childcare, that responsibility to left to parents alone and if both parents work, they are told that they just don't love their kids enough to "sacrifice". More often than not in modern societies, the family unit (or the lack of the family unit) is used to scapegoat larger social problems. Crime is the result of poor parenting (not lack of jobs), neglect is from "broken homes" (not lack of social programs), black people suffer from low employment and incarceration disproportionately because of a lack of male-headed homes and so on. This is why the right-wing is so crazy about family values.