Jump to content

Civil partnership or Marriage


Wolfie
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146

 

A heterosexual couple have lost their Court of Appeal battle to have a civil partnership instead of a marriage.

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, from London, challenged a ruling that said they did not meet the legal requirement of being the same sex.

The judges said there was a potential breach of their human rights, but the government should have more time to decide the future of civil partnership.

The couple said there was still "everything to fight for".

They intend to appeal to the Supreme Court.

A government spokesman said it welcomed the ruling and would take the judgement into account during its evaluation of civil partnerships.

'Long overdue'

The BBC's legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the couple had lost by the "narrowest of margins" as all three judges accepted there was a potential breach of their human rights.

Our correspondent said: "The government's 'wait and see' policy, which is based on looking at the take-up of same-sex civil partnerships, was found by Lady Justice Arden not to be not good enough to address the discrimination faced by heterosexual couples.

"However, her fellow judges were prepared to let the government have a little more time and so the case was lost on that issue alone."

Kate Stewart and Matthew Cole, 46, decided to get a civil partnership in Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory, in June 2016, after deciding marriage was not for them.

"Matthew and I didn't feel that marriage reflected our relationship," said Dr Stewart, from Derby.

"The institution [of marriage] is very much unequal depending on your religion.

"We therefore felt it wasn't a status we were comfortable with because it still had hangovers of inequality from the past."

Dr Stewart, 48, said although they believed marriage was right for some couples, it was about having the choice.

 

No idea what this case will have cost us all but I can't get my head round why these people can't just have a non-religeous marriage by a registrar?.

Some people have too little to worrry about, to launch long battles about stuff like this IMO. Or they're narcissists.

Since gays were able to marry, nobody is getting civil partnerships any more anyway - except for gay clergy members (as I heard on TV last weekend). They might as well scrap them and the problem will go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose there's a principal at stake - either everyone should be able to have a civil partnership or no-one - it now seems that 'equality' actually means gay folk have a choice of marriage or civil partnership whereas heterosexual folk don't - which doesn't seem very equal.

As you say Wolfie, it would have made far more sense for the government to have put a stop to any more civil partnerships when they changed the law on gay marriage....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

I suppose there's a principal at stake - either everyone should be able to have a civil partnership or no-one - it now seems that 'equality' actually means gay folk have a choice of marriage or civil partnership whereas heterosexual folk don't - which doesn't seem very equal.

As you say Wolfie, it would have made far more sense for the government to have put a stop to any more civil partnerships when they changed the law on gay marriage....

Oh I agree there's a discrepancy here. It just annoys me that this case will have cost a lot of money because two people don't like being defined as "married" because...

"Matthew and I didn't feel that marriage reflected our relationship," said Dr Stewart, from Derby.

"The institution [of marriage] is very much unequal depending on your religion. "We therefore felt it wasn't a status we were comfortable with because it still had hangovers of inequality from the past."

I didn't have a religeous marriage. I can't understand what drives people to go to the lengths they have to prove a point - at our cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the modern way - if you can have a public moan about something, then go for it (particularly if you can get someone else to pick up the tab). Society is rapidly evolving to the point where everything is questioned and nothing accepted....in some situations, that may be considered a good thing, but in this case, the complainants should have asked the question and been told the answer (no!) without being able to then go to court over it.

I'm not quite sure how it's happened, but anything race or equality related seems to be constantly under scrutiny from people who don't like the way the laws are currently set out. I suspect it's an effect of people feeling they can speak out about their personal circumstances but also the impression given by government over the past 15 or so years that 'the people' have been empowered (such as the way anyone can raise a petition and get it reviewed if enough people sign-up). The way we're going, we'll end up being governed by the masses voting via their phones....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Oh I agree there's a discrepancy here. It just annoys me that this case will have cost a lot of money because two people don't like being defined as "married" because...

"Matthew and I didn't feel that marriage reflected our relationship," said Dr Stewart, from Derby.

"The institution [of marriage] is very much unequal depending on your religion. "We therefore felt it wasn't a status we were comfortable with because it still had hangovers of inequality from the past."

I didn't have a religeous marriage. I can't understand what drives people to go to the lengths they have to prove a point - at our cost.

If marriage isn't a religious institution, why did our government initially refuse to sanction same sex marriage based on objections from the church?

Money has been wasted, but you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction. I find it utterly baffling that the government chose to fight this. What this couple want is perfectly fair and logical, given the current laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Anon said:

If marriage isn't a religious institution, why did our government initially refuse to sanction same sex marriage based on objections from the church?

The Church - or any religion - has no business interfering with an elected government IMO but that's a whole other argument.

34 minutes ago, Anon said:

Money has been wasted, but you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction. I find it utterly baffling that the government chose to fight this. What this couple want is perfectly fair and logical, given the current laws.

I don't see they had a choice but to fight it, as it's against current law - whether right or wrong. There's a review in place where the government is establishing whether civil partnerships are defunct, now that marriage is open to all. This couple, rather than wait until the decison is made, have tried to force the issue out of self-interest/publicity IMO and we've all picked up the tab.

I do think the government need to pull their finger out and make a decision, though, and if civil parnerships are still going to exist, they should be available to all - even if I can't understand why anyone would want to, rather than be "married".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

The Church - or any religion - has no business interfering with an elected government IMO but that's a whole other argument.

I don't see they had a choice but to fight it, as it's against current law - whether right or wrong. There's a review in place where the government is establishing whether civil partnerships are defunct, now that marriage is open to all. This couple, rather than wait until the decison is made, have tried to force the issue out of self-interest/publicity IMO and we've all picked up the tab.

I do think the government need to pull their finger out and make a decision, though, and if civil parnerships are still going to exist, they should be available to all - even if I can't understand why anyone would want to, rather than be "married".

Can you explain to me what this couple are getting out of this, if their actions are down to self interest? Admittedly, I don't know the specifics of the case, but so far as I'm aware all they have to show for this is a large legal bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Anon said:

Can you explain to me what this couple are getting out of this, if their actions are down to self interest? Admittedly, I don't know the specifics of the case, but so far as I'm aware all they have to show for this is a large legal bill.

I don't know because I don't know if they have personal or professional interest in the case but 15 minutes of fame is enough for plenty of people.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fully behind the couple. It's blatant discrimination. I wouldn't want to get married, but there are good reasons in terms of protecting each other that means a civil partnership would be an ideal way forward, but we're discriminated against because we're not the same sex. Very cowardly of the Appeal Court not simply to rule, rather than urge the government to look into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Fully behind the couple. It's blatant discrimination. I wouldn't want to get married, but there are good reasons in terms of protecting each other that means a civil partnership would be an ideal way forward, but we're discriminated against because we're not the same sex. Very cowardly of the Appeal Court not simply to rule, rather than urge the government to look into it.

Why is that?.

I would genuinely like to understand why people would be OK with a civil partnership but not a registry office wedding and legal marriage with equal rights & protections?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Why is that?.

I would genuinely like to understand why people would be OK with a civil partnership but not a registry office wedding and legal marriage with equal rights & protections?.

Everyone was ok with a registry office wedding before the government chucked a spanner in the works because they were too cowardly to say no to either the religious or the gay lobbyists. The civil partnership by it's very existence marks marriage out as a religious ceremony.

I understand the argument that it is outrageous to change the law to kowtow to a minority of difficult individuals, but this problem was created by doing precisely that. Why should Christians get a change in the law to pacify their feelings, but secularists be expected to make do and not cause a fuss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/02/2017 at 15:32, Wolfie said:

Why is that?.

I would genuinely like to understand why people would be OK with a civil partnership but not a registry office wedding and legal marriage with equal rights & protections?.

For me marriage will always have relilgious echoes and there will always be questions about taking the other person's name and stuff like that. The whole thing is too daunting and intimidating, and that's partly connnected with family expectations rather than simply my own thoughts. Whereas a civil partnership wouldn't put family noses out of joint, when a simple registry office wedding would be a massive disappointment to family and way too much grief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/02/2017 at 16:29, Carl Sagan said:

For me marriage will always have relilgious echoes and there will always be questions about taking the other person's name and stuff like that. The whole thing is too daunting and intimidating, and that's partly connnected with family expectations rather than simply my own thoughts. Whereas a civil partnership wouldn't put family noses out of joint, when a simple registry office wedding would be a massive disappointment to family and way too much grief.

Not sure why I've just seen this response but fair enough & thanks for sharing. I can certainly empathise with the family thing - having dealt with those issues twice myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been married for 42 years and would not want life any other way.

It has been far from smooth sailing on numerous occasions but the problems have only served to bring us closer as a couple.

We gladly took the vows "Till death us do part" aware that it is often a case of "Till divorce us do part"!

I may be old fashioned and out on a limb but from experience I can say that marriage with the right person is the finest recipe for a contented life.

Like most couples we do not like all the same things and our tastes often differ?

She hates football and doesn't even support the Rams, but I don't like her any the less for that. At least she doesn't follow the Gumps!

To each their own but I believe nothing compares with a successful marriage.

I may be sailing against the prevailing winds but so what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.