Closest thing to "civil partnership" for couple who are not same-sex.

HanSpan

coolcait wrote: »

I don't agree with that.

The 'general discussion' part ended - in my view - when there were a couple of posts which were about the OP, attributing her with certain motivations for not wanting to get married.

I didn't think that those ascribed motivations were a fair reflection of what the OP has been saying about her reasons for not wanting to get married. And I say that as someone whose contributions to the thread show that I disagree with much of what the OP has said in terms of 'weddings' and 'marriage' and my view of the differences between the two!

I think it was fair for her to respond to those posts and re-state her position - especially as it had been misrepresented.

If people want to keep the 'general discussion' part of the thread running - and I'm finding it interesting, so I'd quite like that too - then it will probably work better if posters stick to general discussion rather than personal points about/against the OP.

Thank you.
I will try very very hard to sit on my hands (no promises though - its hard not to react when people berate you for views you really don't have) and stick to the general and hope the rest fizzles out.

HanSpan

coolcait wrote: »

Sorry, I was mixing my response to your posts on this thread, and my response to what I have read about the couple seeking the judicial review, and what I have read about the campaign to open up civil partnerships to mixed sex couples. I should have been clearer about where I was coming from!

Sorry if I misunderstood. I may have been feeling a bit defensive by that point last night

From what I have read about the judicial review and the campaign, the participants either haven't done much proper research, or they are relying on persuading people through soundbites rather than hard facts. The 'hard facts' seem to be thin on the ground, and very much unpublished.

The bits I have read show the challenge isn't based on what happens elsewhere but on the incompatibility of the existing law with parts of the European Convention on Human Rights "Charles and Rebecca’s legal claim is that Section 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which restricts civil partnerships to same-sex couples, is incompatible with Article 14 (read with Article 8) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that everyone should be treated equally by law, regardless of sex or sexual orientation."
There's more here: http://equalcivilpartnerships.org.uk/legal-challenge/

All that said, any sympathy I might have had with the judicial review couple evaporated when I read that they had invited the Registrar to commit an act of civil disobedience, and just register them as civil partners anyway!

Many things have been changed over the years by acts of civil disobedience so I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong in asking. They asked & the Registrar reportedly said "it's not worth my job" and that was the end of it. I wonder if they needed to actually try & register so they could be refused in order to make a personal legal challenge.

The starting point for any PACS is what is laid down in French law. For me, much of its content is either dangerously woolly, and open to abuse by a controlling partner, and/or hideously close to State interference in the minutiae of a couple's joint life.

While I can understand that some people want a Civil Partnership style option for mixed couples - although I don't agree with their aim, and I certainly don't agree with much of the reasoning put forward in support of that aim - I simply cannot understand why any of them would put forward the PACS option as something to aim for!

I suppose that brings me back to my earlier point about research.

From the more recent posts about PACs, if I lived in France I would definitely be researching very carefully before even considering one!

HanSpan

missbiggles1 wrote: »

coolcait wrote: »

I've obviously read the same PACS articles as you have and it seems to me that many young French couples are using them as an entry route to a full marriage, rather as used to be the case for a traditional engagement here which has quite rigorous legal responsibilities and where you could sue a fiance who broke the engagement.

I think if I lived in France I'd be checking very carfeully before doing anything. Does seem they have some very strange laws and/or legal precedents!

HanSpan

Just so I don't lose the links again - there is a bill that is due its 3rd reading on the 29th of this month about changing CPs to also include different gender couples:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/civilpartnershipact2004amendment.html

It has passed the review stage and a report on that is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324174/Civil_Partnership_Review_Report_PDF.pdf

Unfortunately there were only 11k responses. It does seem these things are very often not well publicised so there's not much takeup .
The responses are very interesting though, and the overall percentages to the headline questions mean the majority of those respondents seem to favour keeping things as they are:

Whether to abolish CPs for same sex couples - less than a third said yes to this
Whether to open CP up to different sex couples - more than 3/4 said no.

With the juducial review - based on the assertion that the existing setup is contrary to parts of the Human Rights convention - due just before the third reading of this bill it will be very intersting to see what happens.

Can the government keep laws that break other laws even if the majority (of an admittedly rather small sample) of people want to keep them?

missbiggles1

HanSpan wrote: »

Sorry if I misunderstood. I may have been feeling a bit defensive by that point last night

The bits I have read show the challenge isn't based on what happens elsewhere but on the incompatibility of the existing law with parts of the European Convention on Human Rights "Charles and Rebecca’s legal claim is that Section 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which restricts civil partnerships to same-sex couples, is incompatible with Article 14 (read with Article 8) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that everyone should be treated equally by law, regardless of sex or sexual orientation."
There's more here: http://equalcivilpartnerships.org.uk/legal-challenge/

Many things have been changed over the years by acts of civil disobedience so I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong in asking. They asked & the Registrar reportedly said "it's not worth my job" and that was the end of it. I wonder if they needed to actually try & register so they could be refused in order to make a personal legal challenge.

From the more recent posts about PACs, if I lived in France I would definitely be researching very carefully before even considering one!

But now same sex marriage is legal in most of the UK, you could withdraw civil partnerships for everybody and achieve equality for all.

onomatopoeia99

HanSpan wrote: »

Can the government keep laws that break other laws even if the majority (of an admittedly rather small sample) of people want to keep them?

No. If one law is found to be in conflict with another by our senior courts, the government has to act to resolve the conflict. Public opinion is irrelevant, statute and precedent (as we are a common law, rather than a civil law jurisdiction) are what matters.

The courts cannot "strike down" a law because parliament is the supreme law making body in the UK, but if the government does not act the courts are likely to find in favour of every claimant adversely affected by the legal problem the conflicting laws create.

HanSpan

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But now same sex marriage is legal in most of the UK, you could withdraw civil partnerships for everybody and achieve equality for all.

If you look at the review of the bill due its 3rd reading at the end of the month (post above) the majority of those asked didn't want it withdrawn, or even phased out. There are all sorts of reasons, many of which are in that consultation document.
Its interesting to read as different people's reasons for "voting" the way they have quite often seem to be actually opposite reasoning for the same outcome!

duchy

HanSpan wrote: »

The bits I have read show the challenge isn't based on what happens elsewhere but on the incompatibility of the existing law with parts of the European Convention on Human Rights "Charles and Rebecca’s legal claim is that Section 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which restricts civil partnerships to same-sex couples, is incompatible with Article 14 (read with Article 8) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that everyone should be treated equally by law, regardless of sex or sexual orientation."
]

Which actually means that to keep Europe happy Britain has two choices - spend money on extending CP or ditching it altogether. Either way brings equality .........

Somehow I don't see them going for the more expensive option. Not to mention the Family values angle - that CP can be claimed to undermine marriage without much effort.

HanSpan

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

No. If one law is found to be in conflict with another by our senior courts, the government has to act to resolve the conflict. Public opinion is irrelevant, statute and precedent (as we are a common law, rather than a civil law jurisdiction) are what matters.

The courts cannot "strike down" a law because parliament is the supreme law making body in the UK, but if the government does not act the courts are likely to find in favour of every claimant adversely affected by the legal problem the conflicting laws create.

Then they may well be between a rock and a hard place on 29 January!
Assuming the legal challenge is won - in purely financial terms I wonder which would be most vs least costly to the public purse.

Not changing the law and dealing with the legal challenges from different gender couples.

Doing away with CPs alltogether and dealing with the cost of removing the law and legal challenges from anyone forced to switch that doesn't want to, or if they allow people who already are in a CP to remain in one dealing with the costs of changing the law and from the inevitable backlash about that (see many of the responses in the consultation).

Opening up CPs to different sex couples and dealing with the cost of changing the law and the additional costs in terms of tax advantages for the couples who currently co-habit taht might take up the chance of CPs where they would never have married.

They are all extremely hard to quantify as no-one knows how many people would actually be in any of the groups affected by the different options.

zippychick

onlyroz wrote: »

I don't think anybody is telling the OP to "conform or suffer". Modern marriage is far removed from the traditional set up of centuries past, and will no doubt continue to evolve with the times. And marriage is more likely to evolve for the better if more people get married choosing the non-traditional options.

So if we want to encourage women to shun the white dress, and to not have to worry about consummating the marriage, or being "given away" by their father, then instead of saying "I won't get married", they should say "I will get married and I will proudly show the world how to do things a better way".

I'm getting married this year in a non religious ceremony. I'm not being "given away" (no one owns me :cool:), and i won't be wearing white. I will be taking my other halfs name because i think it sounds like a superhero name:rotfl: (In all seriousness i have very personal issues for wanting to change my name which i'm not going into here )

If money wasn't an issue we would pick somewhere completely off the wall crazy or obscure but we are going for cheap as chips so it will more than likely be registry office. No car, no flowers, no crazy bridal party suits and formality, just as basic as possible.

Onlyroz - am interested to know why you regret changing your name?