Switch Theme:

Can somebody explain this: heterosexual couple's bid for civil partnership. Court rules against.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





At this point we might as well just stop legally distinguishing between marriage and civil partnership and simply regard them all as a Legal Partnership. People can be free to call it what they wish according to their beliefs and sexuality but to the government its all the same.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
At this point we might as well just stop legally distinguishing between marriage and civil partnership and simply regard them all as a Legal Partnership. People can be free to call it what they wish according to their beliefs and sexuality but to the government its all the same.


I imagine that's pretty much the point that the couple were making. Essentially, an activity to point out a legal gap and inconsistency.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Secret Squirrel






Leerstetten, Germany

GoatboyBeta wrote:
. There main objection seemed to be to the "patriarchal baggage" of marriage

 feeder wrote:
Why is that a face palm?

 welshhoppo wrote:
Because marriage isn't patriarchal baggage.


Well, this requirement could be seen as patriarchal baggage:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

2. The marriage certificate must show the fathers' names.


Marriage, either as an institution or in the form of customs, does have many things that could also be contributing to that feeling. Things like "asking her dad for permission to marry her", asking "who gives this woman to be married", taking the husbands name, etc. This is changing somewhat with the generations, I didn't ask my father-in-law for any permission 15 years ago, but the themes are still present. During our ceremony they still asked "who gives this woman to be married", although her parents answered together "she gives herself" rather than treating her as something to be given away.
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

Why be married at all?
When it is advantageous to enter a "partnership".

Why would anyone want to enter a partnership?
For the one main reason when life gets difficult: raising kids.

I can totally see some common bond on wanting to be part of being the parent for a given kid.
Like being a partner in a business, the relationship goes a fair bit farther than a friendship due to the challenges.

Other than trying to make sure no-one is gaming the system, I see no reason why a civil partnership is not doable.
The real FUN would be if one "partner" suddenly wants to have a "proper" marriage, how to proceed with that one.

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







I imagine that is what's known as a 'self solving problem....'
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Roswell, GA

At the end of the day people need to stay the hell out of other peoples business with who they marry as long as they are consenting adults.
   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





Beijing

 d-usa wrote:
GoatboyBeta wrote:
. There main objection seemed to be to the "patriarchal baggage" of marriage

 feeder wrote:
Why is that a face palm?

 welshhoppo wrote:
Because marriage isn't patriarchal baggage.


Well, this requirement could be seen as patriarchal baggage:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

2. The marriage certificate must show the fathers' names.


Marriage, either as an institution or in the form of customs, does have many things that could also be contributing to that feeling. Things like "asking her dad for permission to marry her", asking "who gives this woman to be married", taking the husbands name, etc. This is changing somewhat with the generations, I didn't ask my father-in-law for any permission 15 years ago, but the themes are still present. During our ceremony they still asked "who gives this woman to be married", although her parents answered together "she gives herself" rather than treating her as something to be given away.


You don't have to say or do any of those things, not in a civil ceremony anyway.
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm bamboozled to say the least.

here's the full story: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/heterosexual-couples-should-not-be-allowed-civil-partnerships-court-rules

This man and woman have failed in their bid to enter into a civil partnership.

But forgive my naivety, a man and woman can enter into something called marriage, if they want a legally binding partnership?

Or am I wrong?

The people in question are citing discrimination against heterosexual relationships, marriage being too patriarchal etc etc as reasons for wanting a civil partnership.

and now there is talk of MPs getting involved and laws being changed.

But it still makes no sense to me. If anything, a woman in a marriage has better legal protections and rights when it comes to divorce.

I'm advancing in years, and the modern world is confusing the hell out of me

What's going on here? A genuine fight against discrimination or some crackpot scheme?



Ethics has nothing to do with it, legislative frameworking does, with an unhealthy dose of political correctness. The legislation was introduced in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and was specific to homosexual couples, ideally it should have effected everyone but there was no homosexual marriage until the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. This cycle of legislation is not yet complete and this is the test case to get it moving.

It would appear to be illogical for civic partnership rights to extend only to homosexuals, but the politically correct zeitgeist under which this legislation was introduced only paid lip service to actual equality. 'Equality' in its PC framework means increased rights for some, but not all, which is necessary for the control mechanisms of that type of government as a form of divide and rule and guilt culture. The LGBT community has no responsibility for this mishandling of legislation with exception of those activists connected to the regime of the time. The New Labour model for social control, of selective rights highlighting and legislation under a veneer of 'equality' is a very effective strategem and has been widely emulated in the post Blair era in the Uk and abroad. Most people are still ignorant of the subtleties of the methods, including many still in political parties today.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Orlanth wrote:
It would appear to be illogical for civic partnership rights to extend only to homosexuals, but the politically correct zeitgeist under which this legislation was introduced only paid lip service to actual equality. 'Equality' in its PC framework means increased rights for some, but not all, which is necessary for the control mechanisms of that type of government as a form of divide and rule and guilt culture. The LGBT community has no responsibility for this mishandling of legislation with exception of those activists connected to the regime of the time. The New Labour model for social control, of selective rights highlighting and legislation under a veneer of 'equality' is a very effective strategem and has been widely emulated in the post Blair era in the Uk and abroad. Most people are still ignorant of the subtleties of the methods, including many still in political parties today.


Lolwut? Civil partnership laws are the result of homophobic right-wing religious groups, not whatever "politically correct zeitgeist" you feel compelled to imagine and complain about. And they're about preserving inequality, not increased rights for some. The whole point is to give a special marriage-like union that includes all the practical benefits of marriage without using the term "marriage", since homophobic right-wing religious groups were outraged at the idea that gay couples could use the same word that they use. If you're able to get married then you have no need for a civil partnership law, you can just get married and get all the same benefits. And now that gay marriage is legal (and the right-wing opposition has been told to STFU about it) there's no more need for civil partnerships, and the case in the OP is a waste of everyone's time.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 Peregrine wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
It would appear to be illogical for civic partnership rights to extend only to homosexuals, but the politically correct zeitgeist under which this legislation was introduced only paid lip service to actual equality. 'Equality' in its PC framework means increased rights for some, but not all, which is necessary for the control mechanisms of that type of government as a form of divide and rule and guilt culture. The LGBT community has no responsibility for this mishandling of legislation with exception of those activists connected to the regime of the time. The New Labour model for social control, of selective rights highlighting and legislation under a veneer of 'equality' is a very effective strategem and has been widely emulated in the post Blair era in the Uk and abroad. Most people are still ignorant of the subtleties of the methods, including many still in political parties today.


Lolwut? Civil partnership laws are the result of homophobic right-wing religious groups, not whatever "politically correct zeitgeist" you feel compelled to imagine and complain about.



As normal you completely manage to misread a reply and ride off on a wierd tangent.

 Peregrine wrote:


And they're about preserving inequality, not increased rights for some. The whole point is to give a special marriage-like union that includes all the practical benefits of marriage without using the term "marriage", since homophobic right-wing religious groups were outraged at the idea that gay couples could use the same word that they use.


And this is about a UK case, so US Bible Belt power centres, Tea Party or GoP has nothing to do with it. UK politics is not even remotely similar to what you are describing and the UK church is actually very left wing progressive, especially in the Blair years when the relevant legislation was rolled out.


 Peregrine wrote:

If you're able to get married then you have no need for a civil partnership law, you can just get married and get all the same benefits. And now that gay marriage is legal (and the right-wing opposition has been told to STFU about it) there's no more need for civil partnerships, and the case in the OP is a waste of everyone's time.


Actually a number of people want the legal benefits without marriage. This right is available to same sex couples but not for everyone, that is discriminatory.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Civil Partnership actually was introduced as a way to grant same-sex couples the legal status of a marriage without it being called a marriage. The differences between the two types of ceremony are pretty minor.

The fact that different sex couples cannot take advantage is a result of the above. It is discrimination by accident rather than by design.

The government has taken the view that a few years experience will show the level of demand for CPs now that you can just get married. The situation presumably will then be resolved either by abolishing CPs, or by reforming them to allow same sex couples to take part.

Apparently demand for CPs has fallen off since marriage became legal for gay people.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: