Civil partnerships should be available to straight couples

[digitalWestie]

No description provided.

[digitalWestie]

Just to check, is 'straight' pc language?

[frabcus]

I like this one - it's small, but seems good for completeness. As a heterosexual, I feel mildly discriminated that I can't have a civil partnership with a woman. It's not a big deal though to be honest - if I really cared, I'd just modify my mental meaning of "marriage" like everyone else does.

This is a useful summary of the current difference between marriage and civil partnership: http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/family/marriage_and_civil_partnerships/500385.html

There is, essentially, very little difference legally between a marriage and a civil partnership except that > the former is intended only for heterosexual couples and the latter for homosexual couples.

The difference exists principally due to protests from religious groups about recognising same-sex
couples and heterosexual couples in the same way. In fact, religious institutions are not legally
permitted to perform civil partnerships.

Hmm, after reading that this puts me off. Basically marriage and civil partnerships are already the same. The only reason to change it would be to have a dig at religious groups for wanting to keep the word "marriage" as specially heterosexual.

While it does leave me not liking "marriage" because of its religious associations, that is just the same bias in reverse, I think.

[Floppy]

👍 because completeness and equality, but as gay marriage is now legal, do we need civil partnerships any more? As @frabcus says, there's really no difference except naming.

[PaulJRobinson]

👍 but to cover James' point above about whether they are still needed at all: some civil partners don't want to get married and why should they be forced into that transition. Also who is the State to tell them their civil partnership is now void unless they wish to marry?

[Floppy]

Fair enough!

[philipjohn]

👍 "Marriage" comes with baggage, which is just a perception thing, yes, but it's important to a lot of people.

[francisdavey]

Or abolish completely state intervention in marriage and allow simple registration of unions with the right to contract out to registered bodies. I have no idea why we don't do this. Stupidity and stubbornness by the state perhaps?

What I mean is: invent a status ("tax and property union") or something and allow people to register it with some formalities but without ceremony. To allow the status quo ante to continue, permit organisations (like churches, philosophical societies and so on) to register to perform ceremonies which will act as the formalisation of a tax and property union. Allow people to call it what they like.

Civil Partnerships were invented because it was thought to be too complicated to have same-sex marriage at the time (too much secondary legislating to do). There's no really good conceptual distinction, but lots of small and needless legal distinctions. Better to simply sweep the whole thing up into simplicity rather than the complex mess of rules that are at present.

[digitalWestie]

Yeah, Francis does have a point, is the state getting involved in something
it shouldn't? Or is this just semantics marriage / tax&property union ?

On 16 October 2014 20:05, Francis Davey notifications@github.com wrote:

Or abolish completely state intervention in marriage and allow simple
registration of unions with the right to contract out to registered bodies.
I have no idea why we don't do this. Stupidity and stubbornness by the
state perhaps?

What I mean is: invent a status ("tax and property union") or something
and allow people to register it with some formalities but without
ceremony. To allow the status quo ante to continue, permit organisations
(like churches, philosophical societies and so on) to register to perform
ceremonies which will act as the formalisation of a tax and property union.
Allow people to call it what they like.

Civil Partnerships were invented because it was thought to be too
complicated to have same-sex marriage at the time (too much secondary
legislating to do). There's no really good conceptual distinction, but lots
of small and needless legal distinctions. Better to simply sweep the whole
thing up into simplicity rather than the complex mess of rules that are at
present.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#227 (comment)
.

[philipjohn]

That's a very good point from @francisdavey

[philipjohn]

Improvements welcome on this based on above comments!

[Floppy]

This proposal is open for discussion and voting. If you are a contributor to this repository (and not the proposer), you may vote on whether or not it is accepted.

How to vote

Vote by entering one of the following symbols in a comment on this pull request. Only your last vote will be counted, and you may change your vote at any time until the change is accepted or closed.

vote	symbol	type this	points
Agree	👍	:thumbsup:	1
Abstain	✋	:hand:	-1
Block	👎	:thumbsdown:	-1000

Proposals will be accepted and merged once they have a total of 2 points when all votes are counted. Votes will be open for a minimum of 7 days, but will be closed if the proposal is not accepted after 90.

Votes are counted automatically here, and results are set in the merge status checks below.

Changes

If the proposer makes a change to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted.