Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

UK to give gay couples equal rights

10:30 / 06.12.02

from the news article on the BBC website (link below)

"Gay men, lesbians and bisexuals would be granted many of the same rights as married couples under UK Government plans for legally-recognised civil partnerships. "

read the story here

So, apart from "its about bloody time" what do people think? are these proposed formal partneships more workable than gay marrages? what are the drawbacks?

12:30 / 06.12.02

Are these proposed formal partnerships more workable than gay marrages?

I think these new arrangements have potential to be more workable in all cases. Despite reform of the vows, tax allowances, etc., marriages are still seen as inequitous arrangements for het couples. (They may well be -- I'm undecided -- there's nothing inexorably unfair that I can see, but a lot of assumptions are made by the participants and society.) The proposals also have interesting implications for non-christian religious weddings, which IIRC still have to be "validated" in a registry office ceremony.

On their own, these declarations may be a little anodyne, but add a cake, plenty of booze and Dave's Disco, and what have you got? A thoroughly modern marriage.

To non-het readers, I must say sorry if I've spoken out of turn. I think the institution of marriage could bear some reform, particularly to include you, but also to include more of the het world.

16:12 / 06.12.02

Big yes here, if only because my chain smoking now means Ganesh could poke his bank manager in the eye one day.

Not an argument against it by any means but I am haunted by the two inept American gay men I saw on Judge Judy (when we still had cable, oh happy days...) arguing about how to divide their toaster when they split up. Splitting up is going to become much more complex and, no doubt, provide more employment for lawyers. Not sure about palimony for Ganesh when he goes off with a trophy boyfriend though.

But we won't have the ridiculous business of being unable to become legal next of kin, nor inherit superannuation due, nor continue a council tenency when a partner dies. On balance, I am wholly positive.

I wonder if this will equalise immigration rights as well? Hooray! But which one of us will have to get down on one knee and propose? He can carry the bouquet but I want the frock. I wonder where Paula Yates got her blood-red wedding dress?

I see the Tories have jumped right on board with this one. Wonder if the Lords will be so compliant? What's that rattling noise? Ah, the ghost of Baroness Young revolving in her grave.

pointless and uncalled for

18:00 / 06.12.02

About time et al...

No it's not total equalisation, but I do think that you have to be happy about it.

I realise that only complete equalisation will be good enough but if anyone has been thinking that was going to happen in one fell move in the very near future has been living in ..... erm........ with their head in the sand. Progression is progression and hopefully even the extreme sexuality politicians will note that it will be in their best interests to give the big brown eyed puppy of government a pat on the head for not crapping on the carpet.

The better both sides play this game, the easier this and future transitions will come and occur.

I really can't comment on the workability and possilbly shouldn't.

ONLY NICE THINGS

00:26 / 07.12.02

I agree entirely. If any of you poofters want to get uppity, you should be aware that you are just queering the pitch. Or is it not PC to say that anymore?

More relevantly, maybe we should ask how this legislation differs from marriage, why actual gay marriage is still not possible, why it was so necessary to make that clear, and what the possible implications are. Is it even desirable to get places on the basically het institutiuon of marriage? And, conversely, should the same status be offered to any couple of any sexuality who have cohabited for a bit? How does this interact or interfere with "common law" marriage?

01:00 / 07.12.02

How does this interact or interfere with "common law" marriage?

Does "common law" marriage have any grounding or meaning in, er, law?

ONLY NICE THINGS

01:31 / 07.12.02

Good question. The common-law marriage was made illegal in England and (IIRC) the principate in the 18th century. To my knowledge, no such legislation has been passed in Scotland, and common-law marriage remains valid certainly for purposes of inheritance there, as it does in various states of the USA.

So, what are gay couples getting out of this that they do not currently have, and what advantages of marriage are still being reserved for heterosexuals?

06:02 / 07.12.02

Damn gay people fighting for equal rights. "Oooohhh, we want to be treated with the same respect as heterosexuals are." Conceited bastards.

So first Canada, now Britain. How long before the US wises up and why hasn't it happened already?

06:56 / 07.12.02

It is a good thing to eliminate practical grievances for people who share their life together, but cannot get married, or do not want to. I believe those practical grievances are not unique to gay people, and the partnership registration should therefore also be open for heterosexuals and indeed for family members sharing their life. They, too, can loose their house if one of them dies.

Is it more workable than marriage? It will probably be easier to accept for the majority. But real equality is reached when marriage is opened for gay people as well. And I'm sure after this bill has passed, that is only a matter of years.

09:57 / 07.12.02

About bloody time!

Well, apparently the proposals are not going to even be officially presented until next summer. It does strike me as odd, to say the least, that het cohabitating couples are not included in this. There doesn't seem to be any logic about it.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - I don't want us to be able to get married as such. I want the inheritance, employment, tenancy etc rights, but I really don't want anything that resembles marriage.

pointless and uncalled for

11:19 / 07.12.02

Under suspicion that someone is taking shots I'll add to my above statement.

Very evidently the processes aren't perfect but then again neither are the current or past situations. Sure it isn't in everyone's ideals to do things the way they are being done but maybe the way things are being done are in the best interests of progress.

The question that occurs to me, would you rather gain sooner in a way that you don't like than later on your own terms?

My mentality is to go fast and dirty, but that's just me if my personal opinion counts for anything. As the end result has little effect on me it probably doesn't.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

14:20 / 07.12.02

Oh. My. God. I accidentally tuned into a pirate hip-hop station last night while looking for the World Service and they were having a phone-in on this very subject. It went on till about 5 am, but I just couldn't stop listening. It was horrible. Not just the views of the people phoning up, but those of the presenters. "If my kids turned out to be gay then I'd kill them and then kill myself" was one such gem. People who DID phone in in favour were universally shouted down, routinely followed with "nothing against gay people, you understand, it's just unnatural and disgusting". And of course, because it was a pirate station, they had free rein to be just as offensive as they wanted to be.

Educational, but depressing.

14:20 / 07.12.02

SFD: I'm actually not sure that it is unfair that hetero cohabitees aren't specifically included. It all seems a little fuzzy as yet but, as far as I'm aware, the gay legal/medical/pension rights won't automatically apply to all gay couples, only those who choose to undergo some sort of legally binding registration procedure (the bit that's the civil equivalent of marriage).

As I see it, a gay cohabiting couple has, at present, no legal rights. A straight cohabiting couple, on the other hand, has certain 'default' rights under common law. Both couples will henceforth have the option of undergoing a registration procedure (marriage, or its equivalent) and thus obtaining more extensive benefits.

The gay couple can choose to 'marry' (I use the term advisedly) or not. The straight couple can choose to marry or not. Difference is, if the straight couple decides against marriage, they're still entitled to certain 'default' rights; the gay couple is not.

Why is this unfair to the straight couple?

15:09 / 07.12.02

if the straight couple decides against marriage, they're still entitled to certain 'default' rights.

What are these, exactly?

15:20 / 07.12.02

Off the top of my head, a common-law spouse has next-of-kin entitlement (important legally, medically and psychiatrically), may have certain pension rights (including the NHS superannuation) if their partner dies intestate, death duties and, depending on circumstances, a measure of responsibility for any children.

Common law is not 'set in stone' and these entitlements vary (some companies, for example, will not include common-law spouses in their pension schemes while others will). My point is, a gay cohabiting couple shares none of these entitlements.

15:30 / 07.12.02

Ganesh - I think I've misunderstood the rights of straight cohabiting couples. My knowledge is mostly around occupational pensions, most of which still only give married couples proper rights. Sorry for confusing the issue.

15:41 / 07.12.02

Well, it's an extre-e-emely grey area, SFD, and subject to much confusion. Basically, mixed-sex common-law partners are entitled to certain limited rights (slightly more under Scots law than in England & Wales) but are certainly not equivalent to those enjoyed by formally married couples (particularly with regard to property).

I think same-sex couples are very gradually being afforded some common-law rights (some hospitals, for example, seem to grant the same-sex partner limited next-of-kin rights) but this is neither widespread nor legally enshrined.

It's fair to say that same-sex common-law partners are at a disadvantage compared to mixed-sex common-law partners. The introduction of a partnership registration bill will at least allow gay people one more option...

15:42 / 07.12.02

See Haus' post on the legal validity of "common-law" relationships.

I'm not arguing that things are fair, but I'd say that what you refered to are applied public-sector policies and not rights as such, and could easily be usurped by the counter-claim of say, a (grand)parent, ex-wife or ex-husband.

I have a personal pension which I can give to anyone I like just by signing a form.

As I said, I'm not arguing things are fair. But I'm with SFD and the Tory MP at the end of the article on this one. Many het couples feel the same way she does about marriage.

15:55 / 07.12.02

Ignatius: I totally agree with regard to heterosexual couples who choose not to take up the option of marriage; nonetheless, they still presently enjoy more (admittedly readily-'usurpable') common-law benefits than do any gay couples.

(Your personal pension, frankly, seems of little relevance to this discussion.)

The gay 'partnership registration' would be, essentially, marriage without the ceremony - a secular civil union largely shorn of religious or cultural baggage. I'd argue that mixed-sex couples at least have the option of acquiring the same benefits via a straightforward registry office marriage certificate.

Where exactly are mixed-sex cohabitees missing out here?

16:28 / 07.12.02

mixed-sex couples at least have the option of acquiring the same benefits via a straightforward registry office marriage certificate.

Yes they do, which is one reason why the present situation is unfair to same-sex couples. But a registry-office do is not completely without cultural baggage, which is why so many het couples choose not to do it. It must also stick in the craw of e.g. Hindu het couples who I understand have to do it to get their religious marriage recognised in English law.

This is why I'd like to see the proposed partnership registration available to all. This would resolve some het problems and create a parity between gay and other registered relationships. This does not mean I think that gay parity is not reason enough on its own, it's just I see a chance to kill two birds with one stone here. What do you think?

16:38 / 07.12.02

I think we're railing against the family expectation and cultural baggage which clogs the concept of heterosexual 'marriage'. I agree that, in a truly ideal society, there'd exist a range of 'partnership contracts' to cover every (secular or alternatively religious) eventuality, but I don't feel this is centrally relevant to the acceptability of same-sex civil union; it's certainly not a valid reason to object to it.

16:58 / 07.12.02

Sorry Ganesh, I'm not clear what you're after. You want gay marriages, but you don't want/not interested in the rest of us changing? Surely you can't have one without the other -- something's got to give.

18:42 / 07.12.02

I think that Ganesh is being perfectly clear. As he says, in an ideal world there would be a range of contracts to cover all tastes. But given the presence of a huge injustice, it makes sense to tackle that first. Mixed sex couples suffer, at most, discomfort at the tone of a potential ceremony and inconvenience. Same sex couples are prohibited from enjoying the same rights. Sure, I'd change the former as well as the latter but it is clear which is more pressing.

20:37 / 07.12.02

As Lurid says, I'm not being especially opaque here. What I "want", Ignatius, is for gay couples to have the same options, in terms of civil, legal, pension, property and next-of-kin benefits, as straight couples (the "marriage" element doesn't interest me much). I think it'a perfectly reasonable for Hindu couples, etc. to share in those benefits also - but I don't believe their situation is completely analogous to the same-sex issue because, unlike gay people, they at least have the option of marriage.

I'm slightly suspicious that those with particular agendas (far-right Tories, the Christian 'family' groups) are scraping around for, let's face it, relatively rare examples of similar inequity ("What about spinsters who've lived together all their lives but aren't related and aren't gay? Bit unfair for them, eh? Eh?") in an attempt to suggest that those uppity homos are getting ahead of themselves again, demanding special rather than equal treatment. I have absolutely no objection to civil partnership rights being granted to non-familial spinsters, platonic house-sharing friends, Hindus who don't wish to marry formally under UK law and any other disadvantaged minority - but again, I emphasise that the unfair treatment of those smaller subgroups is not a valid reason to object to same-sex couples being afforded these rights here and now.

Am I any clearer?

01:49 / 08.12.02

Yes, Ganesh, I agree with you -- this is why I wrote: This does not mean I think that gay parity is not reason enough on its own.

And though I think, like you, the "far-right Tories, the Christian 'family' groups" are trying to be obstructive rather than constructive, I do think they have stumbled across a problem -- how do you get gay partnerships to to be formalised and equalised without reforming marriage etc. as it is now? It's not just a matter of finding a replacement for the words, "husband and wife." We will have to find a whole new way of thinking about it. Otherwise, I can only imagine a tiered system. And guess who'd be on top?

Lurid -- Describing something as ideal does not make a convincing argument that it is not worth doing. Similarly, arguing the most pressing need has exclusive priority takes us off into a whole different area.

02:02 / 08.12.02

BTW,

(Your personal pension, frankly, seems of little relevance to this discussion.)

What?

02:09 / 08.12.02

I just don't quite see what the "problem" is, Ignatius. Why does the legal formalisation of same-sex partnerships automatically entail "reforming marriage"? And what do you mean by the "tiered system"? I'm genuinely uncertain why the gay partnership bill should apparently be so problematic.

I'm not (and I don't think Lurid is) arguing that same-sex partnerships should have an "exclusive priority" here; I'm merely saying that the points raised (unfair to non-familial house-sharing friends, Hindus who don't wish to marry under English law, etc., etc.) should constitute a "problem" with the new same-sex legislation. Will passing the gay partnership bill somehow prevent these other subgroups from pressing for their own legal rights?

02:12 / 08.12.02

Ignatius, your personal pension plan seems largely irrelevant here because your apparent freedom to bestow it upon anyone you wish is not the case across the board - certainly not in the public sector's largest employer, the NHS.

14:20 / 08.12.02

A problem maybe, certainly not an obstacle, at least for me. This is a discussion, right?

I'm saying that we can introduce legislation for gay partnerships, but I'm also saying that unless we change the current heterosexual, some would say patriarchal, grounding of the formalised partnerships we have now, we will simply have a system whereby there will be both "gay partnerships" and "traditional (inc. common-law) marriages." If the goal is simply legal parity, then this needn't be a problem at all. Fine. If, though, the goal is parity for gay partnerships on more complete, societal terms, I think the proposal as it is now will come up very short. But hey, it may be the start of something, I suppose, a bit of incrementalism. I hope you get your forty acres and a mule.

Will passing the gay partnership bill somehow prevent these other subgroups from pressing for their own legal rights?

Probably not. And the devil take the hindmost. I think the functions of the post-modern political canon are another thread but, in short, the existence of subgroups proves the existence of a group, of which we know very few are white-heterosexual-reactionary-males, despite their over-representation in government.

About the pension: From my (private-sector) viewpoint, the pension policies of the NHS are no more relevant than anyone else's. I was using my pension to illustrate that pension inequity was not across the board either and so maybe the beef should be with the NHS and other organisations for their shortcomings. Of course, a law would help them see the errors of their ways a great deal more quickly so again I agree with your ends but not your argument.

--

16:14 / 08.12.02

I'm still waiting for similiar things to happen in the USA. But that could take awhile, esp. when you consider the current administration.

Hell, sodomy is still against the law in a few states, esp. Texas (I know the Supreme Court will be reviewing this soon).

03:01 / 18.06.03

Just thought I would mention this:

Canadian Feds to recognise same-sex marriage

Thanks to the courts it seems. Other courts in the last year have ruled that not allowing same-sex marriages are against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but have given the Feds a time loophole to amend the law.

...then last week, Ontario ruled that effective immediately, gay marriage is allowed in Ontario. The Feds almost appealed it, but suprisingly enough (and thankfully) they've decided not to.

(Over 89 same-sex couples have been legally married in the first week now)

But the prime minister made it clear Ottawa would not impose the new law on religious groups, who can still refuse to perform same-sex weddings. Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands as the only countries allowing gay and lesbian weddings.

The right to marriage may be defined by Ottawa but it's up to the provinces to issue the licences, Alberta Justice Minister David Hancock said. And Alberta has no intention to hand them out to same-sex couples, he said. Instead, the province will invoke the Constitution's notwithstanding clause if Ottawa tries forcing it to hand out same-sex marriage licences. The controversial clause allows governments to supersede parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a five-year period.

The historic view of marriage as a heterosexual institution was thought to be so obvious that it was never explicitly included in federal statutes. It only became enshrined in federal law in recent years, including a bill in 2000 that extended full federal tax and social benefits to same-sex couples.

Gays and lesbians weren't satisfied with the changes, arguing that current laws have resulted in a patchwork of inequality, as some provinces extend full benefits while others don't.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

14:04 / 14.07.03

Well, in Loztopia marriage wouldn't exist, merely civil unions between one person of any sex and another person of any sex. If those two people happened to be Christian then they could have that marriage done in a church with the white dress, friend of the bride/friend of the groom, best man, just married, limp cucumber sandwiches stuff but it wouldn't mean anything if they haven't done the paperwork which would be entirely the same for two gay men who don't have the white wedding treatment.

In the real world, where sweets and ice-cream make you fat if you eat too much of them, I will not allow my dislike of the institution of marriage to prevent me from seeing and declaring this a 'good thing'.