Civil Partnership Bill

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 17 Nov 2004, 20:26

Unless my source is unreliable, the Lords have just voted to pass the Civil Partnership Bill, without the wrecking amendment Baroness O'Cathain added last time.
It might be that nobody here is interested - or you might be against it - but I just had to share what I see as fantastic news!!!

Cheers.
BB

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 17 Nov 2004, 20:39

Not against it at all.... if you want commitment...at least you now have a choice

Does the Bill also apply to Scotland

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 17 Nov 2004, 20:45

Yes. The Scottish parliament agreed to a sewel motion basically leaving it to Westminster to introduce it. There are problems with it having been dealt with that way, but it does mean that certain legislative aspects which Holyrood couldn't have done anything about can now be dealt with by Westminster.
We're still stunned that it got through...but the celebratory glass of wine is helping!!!

Beach Babe · Post by **Beach Babe** » 17 Nov 2004, 20:48

excellent news Bellybabe

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 17 Nov 2004, 20:51

Cheers

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Nov 2004, 20:52

Prior to taking a position. I'm waiting to see whether Dada is for or against?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 17 Nov 2004, 21:04

Glad to hear the news....

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 17 Nov 2004, 21:21

Very pleased for everyone concerned. I imagine there could be quite a few celebrations in Portobello tonight.

Here's what it will mean.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 17 Nov 2004, 21:23

Hm...not quite sure what the part about parental responsibility will mean, as that's a very different situation in Scotland from that in England and Wales. Still, makes no difference to us, so I can wait to find that out!

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 17 Nov 2004, 22:09

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 17 Nov 2004, 23:56

I think it's great news. Can we now hope for improved rights for cohabiting heterosexual couples?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Nov 2004, 00:13

Next-of-kin visiting rights in hospitals

Well, I guess you can't win them all. (how cool is my post count? 1234)

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 18 Nov 2004, 00:19

Your new avatar doesn't suit you. Get back to the cat!

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 18 Nov 2004, 10:36

dccairns wrote:I think it's great news. Can we now hope for improved rights for cohabiting heterosexual couples?

Most of those of us involved in the consultation wanted the law applied to straight couples as well - we want equality to be equality for all or it's not equality. Sadly, our respective governments didn't see it that way. The theory behind their decision not to include straight couples is that they are free to marry and therefore to access those rights thorugh marriage, whilst we are not able to marry and therefore have no access to the same rights. But it's still discriminatory.

Hopefully there'll be moves in that direction now though.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 18 Nov 2004, 12:29

Sorry - I don't agree with Bellybabe, Hetrosexual couples have the right to marry if they wish - there are no legal barriers. I do not see any reasons why they should be given any further rights - when they have the choice to either cohabit or marry - their decision, live with it.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 18 Nov 2004, 13:36

Totally with you on this Gemini. What on earth can you gripe about as a co-habiting couple if you have already declined to make your relationship legal?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 18 Nov 2004, 14:48

Thanks for the Support Marya!

I am a tad confused about Bellybabe's following statement:

Quote:
The theory behind their decision not to include straight couples is that they are free to marry and therefore to access those rights thorugh marriage, whilst we are not able to marry and therefore have no access to the same rights. But it's still discriminatory. :

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 18 Nov 2004, 15:36

I'll try and explain.

Married couples have more rights than unmarried couples.
Straight couples can choose to marry to access those rights.
Gay couples cannot marry, therefore have no access to those rights.
Registered partnerships are being made legal and will therefore allow gay couples to access most (but not all, I believe) of those rights...but gay couples are still not allowed to "marry". Straight couples cannot register their partnerships as it is considered they can access the same rights asd married couples by getting married.
However, marriage is considered by some to be a state/religious institution, and they would prefer not to take such a step. They are therefore denied any recognition of the realities of their relationship because of that, and the fact thay they have a relationship apparently not unlike that of a married couple, but prefer not to have a state or religious sanctioning of it. Some people take issue with the idea that the state has the right to decide when someone's relationship is valid and when it is not.
So really, the civil partnership bill is a great step forward towards equality...but it is still not equality.
Gay couples can access most of the rights by registering their partnership...but are still not allowed to "marry". Straight couples are only allowed those rights by accepting the state institution of marriage, whether they like it or not. So it seems to me that there is still discrimination against everyone except married couples.
Does what i was saying make sense now?

ras · Post by **ras** » 18 Nov 2004, 15:56

totally agree Bellybabe

quote

"What on earth can you gripe about as a co-habiting couple if you have already declined to make your relationship legal?"

I didn't realise it was illegal to co-habit
If the main reason you go from co-habiting to getting married is to take advantage of tax breaks it is no wonder that in excess of 1 in 3 marriages fail

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Nov 2004, 16:49

Bellybabe wrote:I'll try and explain.

Married couples have more rights than unmarried couples.
Straight couples can choose to marry to access those rights.
Gay couples cannot marry, therefore have no access to those rights.
Registered partnerships are being made legal and will therefore allow gay couples to access most (but not all, I believe) of those rights...but gay couples are still not allowed to "marry". Straight couples cannot register their partnerships as it is considered they can access the same rights asd married couples by getting married.
However, marriage is considered by some to be a state/religious institution, and they would prefer not to take such a step. They are therefore denied any recognition of the realities of their relationship because of that, and the fact thay they have a relationship apparently not unlike that of a married couple, but prefer not to have a state or religious sanctioning of it. Some people take issue with the idea that the state has the right to decide when someone's relationship is valid and when it is not.
So really, the civil partnership bill is a great step forward towards equality...but it is still not equality.
Gay couples can access most of the rights by registering their partnership...but are still not allowed to "marry". Straight couples are only allowed those rights by accepting the state institution of marriage, whether they like it or not. So it seems to me that there is still discrimination against everyone except married couples.
Does what i was saying make sense now?

Plus-married couples don't have to think about all of this.

ali · Post by **ali** » 18 Nov 2004, 17:49

Marya wrote:Totally with you on this Gemini. What on earth can you gripe about as a co-habiting couple if you have already declined to make your relationship legal?

Maybe you need to have a re-think about your use of the word "legal" in this situation, Marya?

Interesting that you should spontaneously use it with reference to this issue though.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 18 Nov 2004, 17:55

Bellybabe - perhaps you can enlighten us with what actual rights you are looking to be recognised in you partnership?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 18 Nov 2004, 17:58

ali wrote:
Marya wrote:Totally with you on this Gemini. What on earth can you gripe about as a co-habiting couple if you have already declined to make your relationship legal?

Maybe you need to have a re-think about your use of the word "legal" in this situation, Marya?

Interesting that you should spontaneously use it with reference to this issue though.

Basically Ali, Marriage is a Legal Partnership, recognised by Law - whereas being a 'bide in' is not - compute!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 18 Nov 2004, 18:11

I know that this issue is about far more than tax breaks, but since the subject has been brought up...

Let's assume that straight co-habiting couples are given the same treatment. Who is being discriminated against now? Isn't it the very large number of people who live alone? Isn't it already cheaper to live as a couple? What is the rationale behind giving couples of any flavour tax advantages?

And how far can you take this? How about an unmarried couple, where the partners choose to live apart, perhaps because of work commitments. How long do you have to spend under the same roof to constitiute co-habitation?

ras · Post by **ras** » 18 Nov 2004, 18:18

exactly Gemini - the law is therefore an ass

quote porty
"Plus-married couples don't have to think about all of this."

yep and men generally didn't have to think about sexual equality, women generally didn't have to think about parental rights, able bodied people generally didn't have to think about disabled access, etc. but when someone raises it as an issue and it is seen to be illogical and therefore descriminatory it is worth sorting out and then hopefully nobody has to think about it

and i agree Bob - to make it fair for all scrap the tax breaks. I think you may find that the %age of people getting married might drop though and we couldn't have that could we?

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 18 Nov 2004, 18:27

People decide not to marry for all sorts of reasons but does this make their relationship less valid than those who are married? Commitment is not just about a piece of paper. Cohabiting couples, straight or gay, make up a significant minority in this country and pay their taxes etc like everyone else. Why should they be denied the rights that married people enjoy? One of my friends who was not married to his partner (for what reasons I neither know nor care) was denied access to his three children when they split up. He has not seen them for years as she will not let him and he has no legal right to insist on access. He is a loving dad and did not abuse his ex-partner or kids. Is this fair?

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 18 Nov 2004, 19:00

dccairns wrote:People decide not to marry for all sorts of reasons but does this make their relationship less valid than those who are married? Commitment is not just about a piece of paper. Cohabiting couples, straight or gay, make up a significant minority in this country and pay their taxes etc like everyone else. Why should they be denied the rights that married people enjoy?

Absolutely, and as Joni Mitchell sang so sweetly - "we don't need no piece of paper from the City Hall keeping us tied and true".
The big concern to me is how I get my mitts on Ali's big, fat Civil Service pension when he kicks the bucket if we're not legal???

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 18 Nov 2004, 19:03

I realise that cohabiting relationships are just as important to the cohabitees as marriage is to married people, but it is not recognised under the Family Law Scotland Act yadadadada... Commitment is not just a peice of paper I know, but for any multitide of reasons if the relationship breaks down.. then it actually is a very important piece of paper.

I ts a fact, if you want the rights of a married person, then you have to be married, perhaps more especially if there are children involved, ref. your friend and his situation, along with a host of others.

Moreover, if you are thinking about getting married, make sure that you fit the Domicile criteria and make England the country that you marry in - mainly due to the fact that Women get a better deal in England than they do in Scotland on Divorce, for the men out there thinking of taking the plunge - the opposite will be more beneficial for you.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 18 Nov 2004, 19:14

ras wrote:
and i agree Bob - to make it fair for all scrap the tax breaks.

maybe I'm missing something - what married person's tax breaks are there? I thought all the married man's allowance stuff was gone now?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 18 Nov 2004, 20:31

Oh yeah, it's all family tax credits or something now. Well you can tell who takes care of the finances in our house, can't you? So is there NO financial advantage in being married nowadays?

ali · Post by **ali** » 18 Nov 2004, 20:48

Gemini wrote:
Basically Ali, Marriage is a Legal Partnership, recognised by Law - whereas being a 'bide in' is not - compute!

......................so there is a set of "Legal Partnerships" - one of which is "marriage", to which set of "Legal Partnerships" the government has now added a new category called "same sex partnerships"

- I simply don't see why a third category called "heterosexual relationships" can't also be added to the list without society crumbling around us.
It doesn't seem right to end one form of discrimination by ending discrimination against only some of the people being discriminated against.

(and I managed to make my point without adopting the slightly patronising tone which you
adopted, Gemini!!

)

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 18 Nov 2004, 21:58

Bob wrote:Oh yeah, it's all family tax credits or something now. Well you can tell who takes care of the finances in our house, can't you? So is there NO financial advantage in being married nowadays?

Inheritance stuff n that gives some favour to marrieds, and pension stuff is written explicitly around marrieds, although thats changing a bit.

Picking up Ali's point though:

I agree that it should be a reasonable goal to ensure that ALL partnerships get the same 'deal' BUT that deal has to be administered and policed by someone, and at present that is the state, SO in order to get the rights of a state recognised partnership you surely need to enter into a state-recognised formalisation of the relationship? And at present, that is called marriage.
The form of that is changing and you dont need to call upon God or even get married in a dictated location - all you have to do is have the act logged by the state. (um, I think) Marriage and partnerships bring with them obligations as well as rights in law, so sensibly there has to be some sort of logging / registration process to avoid the questions raised by Bob in an earlier bit of this unexpectedly mushrooming thread!

CatzVP · Post by **CatzVP** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:20

Wow.... does anyone get married out of love anymore??

Why donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t they just make it legal for same sex marriages then it will level things up...(as in 'Legally' not just a persons point of view)

Same sex marriages are legal here, and now the hype of the moral/immoral implications is over, we all just get on with our lives.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:22

Apologies Ali, did not mean to sound patronising. However, even sharing the pension pot in Scotland is not that simple for divorcing couples - Same legislation (reserved) to UK - but anomaly in the adaptation to 'fit in with Scottish LAW has let this woman down rather badly

Article - The Daily Mail

Flaw in the law leaves a family facing hardship
Jo Thornhill, Mail on Sunday
31 August 2003

ER husband was an army chef months from finishing 20 years' service at 40. He had a comfortable pension in prospect.

Tough times: Isabella Clarke, with Steven, 11, and Georgia, 5

She was facing a bleak future after their divorce with two children to bring up in rented accommodation.

Isabella Clark at least had the comfort of knowing that she could claim a share of her husband's pension fund, estimated at Ã‚Â£111,000 by independent actuaries*. But a quirk in Scottish law left her with a paltry Ã‚Â£22,478.

The law for sharing pension assets is the same both sides of the border, but a slight variation means that Scottish sheriffs, who determine divorce settlements, may only consider valuations from fund trustees.

Elsewhere in the UK, independent actuaries' views may be taken into account - and they can put a far higher value on a pension.

Isabella, 43, fell foul of this legal detail when her divorce came to court in 2001. The forces' pension trustees valued her husband's fund at Ã‚Â£44,957 at the date of their separation in 1999. The calculation assumed he would leave the army that day and not receive his pension until 60. In reality, the court knew he planned to retire at 40 - within months of the divorce - with his full pension. That would require a much bigger fund.

Despite a plea by Isabella's solicitor, the sheriff decided that under the law he could accept only the Ã‚Â£44,957 figure. Isabella was awarded half.

Her ex-husband retired two days later with an undisclosed lump sum and a full, inflation-linked pension for life.

'I feel cheated,' says Isabella, who is starting a nursing degree at university in Glasgow. 'I rent accommodation as we used to live in an army home, so I've been left with virtually nothing.'

The Scottish Executive is looking at the law, but any change will not help Isabella.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:23

I think Mr Magnolia is getting to the meat of this argument. Presumably, to enjoy the rights (and responsiblilities) that currently apply only to heterosexual married couples, homesexual couples will now have to sign a piece of paper, an official declaration of commitment. Additionally, they may wish to celebrate this with the odd friend/glass of wine or two, maybe dress up for the occasion, have a special meal, take some photographs etc. Is this starting to sound familiar?

Of course, it doesn't have to be as elaborate as this. As a hetero couple you could just opt for the minimum fuss, 2 witnesses, non-religious 10 minute job and no-one else need ever know. Is a 'marriage' of this type any different from 'registering your partnership'?

Either way, it's a state-recognised relationship that accrues certain advantages to those concerned. Am I missing something? I'm not trying to knock anyone else's lifestyle, I'm just trying to make sense of this.