-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 99
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Civil partnerships should be available to straight couples #227
Conversation
Just to check, is 'straight' pc language? |
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
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. |
👍 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. |
👍 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? |
Fair enough! |
👍 "Marriage" comes with baggage, which is just a perception thing, yes, but it's important to a lot of people. |
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. |
Yeah, Francis does have a point, is the state getting involved in something On 16 October 2014 20:05, Francis Davey notifications@github.com wrote:
|
That's a very good point from @francisdavey |
Civil partnerships should be available to straight couples
Improvements welcome on this based on above comments! |
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 voteVote 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.
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. ChangesIf the proposer makes a change to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted. |
No description provided.