Reader comments · Civil partnerships and marriages to be treated the same by insurers · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Civil partnerships and marriages to be treated the same by insurers

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Now that the ABI is mulling the abolition of exemptions in insurance law involving sexual orientation, this only proves that civil partnerships up to now are definitely NOT equal to marriage as some in the gay community seem to think they are, far from it. In any event, the ABI decision is a positive step and I hope the government consents to it.Robert, ex-pat Brit.

  2. It would be a step in the right direction if some of these companies provided a “Civil Partnership” option in the marital status box, rather than “Partner” or, even worse, “Other”. I refuse to use the “Married” option as they would probably use it as an excuse to avoid paying out in the event of a claim, that’s if the system didn’t reject two people of the same gender from the “Married” option anyway.

  3. My thoughts exactly Robert.I also think it is interesting that NO gay press reported on that little part of The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) that allowed insurance companies to treat people differently on the grounds of their sexual orientation.Why is that?Pink News, could you answer this?

  4. Zeke, civil partnerships are nothing more than a means to silence us, its as if they are throwing the dog a bone to stop the push for full equality. CPs will NEVER be equal and sadly, the majority of us accept it as “better than nothing”. Why should we grovel for “better than nothing”? Don’t we pay taxes, fight in wars, die for our country? What more do they want from us? As far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing Great about GB and I think the G should be removed, permanently given the recent debacle over that poor Iranian woman seeking asylum. Can you imagine, the UK government said that she could not prove that she was a lesbian? Since when does a heterosexual seeking asylym have to prove his or her sexuality, aside from proof of persecution and/or death or both? I am outraged, disgusted and appalled at the apathy of the UK LGBTQ community.Robert, exp pat Brit.

  5. Hugh, again, it only proves that we have accepted and settled for second class citizenship. Any sane gay UK citizen who thinks civil partnerships are about equality is delusional at best. Those who have entered into these discriminatory relationships have aided and abetted government sanctioned discrimination. It was done to silence us and to satisfy EU regulations, it was never done voluntarily by Blair and it won’t be improved upon by Cameron either. We British don’t like change and as always, we are dragged kicking and screaming and forced to act on anything to do with equality. Allowing gays to serve in the military was another classic example of that. Don’t ever think that either party will do anything voluntarily in our best interests. Neither of them truly believe in equality or democracy. If either party were sincere and truly believed in equality we wouldn’t have civil partnerships but marriage and hate crimes legislation would include sexual orientation as a protected category. You have to be heterosexual, christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, even an atheist or agnostic, whatever, to receive equal protection whenever a bias-related crime is committed. That goes for asylym too. There are only five countries that offer full equality, namely Holland (the first), Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa. Doesn’t that tell you something about our country? We have NOTHING to be proud of. Accepting the better than nothing notion isn’t good enough and we shouldn’t become complacent because of it, but that’s what our community has become, lulled into a false sense of security and that everything is all right with our view of the world, it isn’t and it never will be until we have an equal place at the table.Robert, ex-pat Brit

  6. Hi Robert! I think it’s safe to say that all insurance companies are thieving bastards. Marital status is but one of many factors by which they rip us all off. There’s also the issue of gender equality. Here in the U.S. my car insurance premiums are automatically higher simply because I am male. Despite having a clean record I will likely never pay less in premiums than a woman with a profile otherwise comparable to mine.

  7. I am quite happy with my Civil Partnership and as far as I know it gives me every right that those in a church or civil marriage have. The only difference is in the word “marriage” and being a member of GALHA means it is of no consequence to me because of the religious references in that. gives a fair guide to it and one that I’m happy with.Granted there are still a few applications forms out there which need updating and I think Civil Partnerships should be offered to everybody regardless of their sexuality, I know that won’t happen because then we would be able to demand a so-called marriage but not everybody is that bothered about it. As I say, I’m not bothered but my Civil Partner, who is a Christian would have liked a church ceremony and we did have a blessing from the local Brightwaves Vicar Debbie Gaston , (who, incidentally was one of the first couples in England to take the Civil Partnership) long before the Civil Partnership and I think that largely satisfied most people.While Blair may indeed have done this to satisfy Europe, I think more than one or two in his cabinet worked hard behind the scenes to make this happen.No, it isn’t marriage but it’s as good as and a lot of us just don’t want a “marriage”. I think we should be concentrating on more pressing issues such as why, when we have Civil Partnerships, we are still being murdered, beaten up and abused.There are, in my opinion, a lot more pressing issues out there than different ideas of legal marriages and Partnerships.I’ve certainly not thrown in the towel or given up. There’s way too many twats out there.

  8. Angie, I’m sure you are happy within your civil partnership and yes, if they are that equal to marriage then heterosexuals should also be able to enter into these partnerships, but the fact is they’re not which is why they were set up in the first place. The government didn’t want anything to with marriage equality for all.On another note, as more countries upgrade to marriage equality for gay couples, its going to present problems for those in civil unions and partnerships since the two aren’t the same and aren’t interchangeable. In this everchanging business world, marriage is the gold standard in every country on the planet. As we see more countries going for marriage instead of CPs or CUs we’re going to see increasingly more difficulties for nonmarried same-sex couples.I’ll give you an exampe. If I were to marry, say in Canada where it is legal and I returned to the UK, my marriage would NOT be recognised but downgraded to an civil partnership, something I find offensive and insulting. But, if I were to marry in Canada and move to Holland, Belgium, Spain or S. Africa, my marriage would be recognised, not downgraded and I would be accorded all the rights that come with marriage. Now if the government were to recognise CPs as marriage, then there would be no argument, but we all know that no matter who is in 10 Downing Street, its not going to happen unless of course it were forced to, assuming an EU directive mandated such a change in nomenclature. Its the only time our country does anything, when its compelled to by others. Why is it that Holland (the first), Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa weren’t forced to do the right thing? Sweden is already mulling an upgrade to marriage equality and I’ve no doubt Norway and Denmark will follow. Once France upgrades, followed by Germany, the UK will have no choice but to follow. Doesn’t say much about us does it? Robert, ex-pat Brit.

  9. Robert, I can see and understand the point you’re making and hadn’t considered it in that way, so yes, there is more work to be done as regards the Civil Partnerships in that respect but I’m sure that any EU country has to recognise the Civil Partnership as it is in the UK.As for the rest of the world, apart from one or two country’s I don’t think any of them will recognise a same sex marriage/partnership or what have you no matter how it’s dressed up or who it’s endorsed by because the god botherers won’t allow it.In a way it reinforces my feelings Civil Partnerships should allow heterosexual partnerships as well, because it’s not just us then, is it. If that happened then I think it would only be a short walk from that to church or civil weddings for those who want it.Hope all that makes sense, I’m fighting a Migraine right now and tend to talk drivel once the tablets kick in.But some say I talk drivel no matter what medication I’m on.

  10. Here is another aspect that proves that CP is not equal to marriage. I am Belgian and in a Civil Partnetship with my partner who is Britsih. Our CP will not be recognised as mariage by the Belgian authorities. This means that, I could return to Belgium and mary somebody else over there!This is crazy, something will need to be done.

  11. Surely that’s a problem with Belgium, Ben, not the UK which recognises Belgian same sex partnerships/marriages. I don’t think you can beat the UK up for the failings of another country in granting reciprocal rights to the UK.

  12. we entered a CP because it was the only option to avoid death duties etc.It is clear that marriage is something that the straights still want to keep for themselves as being better, so yes CP is second class in that way. But I think we need to grab what we’ve got and then fight for more.As always we gain by little steps because at present no political party with a chance of power wants to upset the religious loudmouths and bigots by bing too much on our side

  13. apYrs, yes, as long as we keep fighting for the right to marry, I’m in agreement. I just don’t want our people to become complacent about it. Marriage DOES matter.AngieRS, regarding Ben’s situation, the UK only recognises civil partnerships/unions, but does NOT and would not recognise legal marriage of a same sex couple married in Belgium where it is permitted. There are 5 countries that permit legal marriage for gay couples, i.e. Holland (the first), Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa. Sweden will probably be the next, followed I’m sure by Norway and Denmark.Also, civil partnerships or unions are recognised reciprocally in countries that offer these partnerships, but NONE are recognised as marriage, anywhere.We MUST keep fighting for full equality, not partial. We need to hold our government’s feet to the fire and compel them to do more on this issue, separate is and never will be equal, no matter how many gains we have made.To digress a bit, what is the situation in the UK where a non-British citizen enters into a CP with a British citizen, then later has the partnership dissolved? Is the non-British partner permitted to remain a legal resident or apply for UK citizenship? Thanks.Robert, ex-pat Brit.

  14. Robert, This from the Equalities Unit. TREATMENT OF OVERSEAS RELATIONSHIPS Will the UK recognise partnership schemes for same-sex couples that exist across Europe and beyond? Same-sex couples who form certain “overseas relationships”, that is certain legal relationships registered under the law of another country or territory, will automatically be treated as having formed a civil partnership and will not need to register in the UK as well, so long as they and their overseas relationship meets the requirements set out in the Civil Partnership Act. These include requirements that the overseas relationship is either (a) one of the specified relationships listed in Schedule 20 to the Act, or (b) a relationship that meets the “general conditions” contained in section 214. The detailed guidance has more information on the criteria to be met for a relationship to be treated as a civil partnership in the UK. The list of specified relationships in Schedule 20 currently contains:Andorra – unio estable de parella (stable union of pairs)Australia: Tasmania – significant relationshipBelgium cohabitation légale, wettelijke samenwoning, gesetzliches zusammenwohnen (statutory cohabitation)Belgium marriageCanada – marriageCanada: Nova Scotia dodomestic partnership There is more but that sections says to me that the UK will recognise Belgium arrangements.That’s from here, You need to scroll down about 2/3 of the page to Treatment of Overseas Relationships. I don’t consider a Civil Partnership to be a downgrade nor do I consider marriage to be a gold standard. As far as I can see Civil Partnerships are every bit as good and if it were for the god botherers that’s what they would have been called in the first place but as a sop to them the government lost its bottle.To be honest, I think that all we’re debating about here is a name and as a certain Brummie once said, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”I think we’ll have to agree to differ.

  15. AngieRs, any gay couple legally married in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada and S. Africa would NOT be recognised in the UK as married but civilly partnered, which proves its not equal to marriage otherwise our government would not downgrade legally married same-sex couples. If you recall, two British female nationals who legally married in Vancouver three of four years ago returned to the UK and were told there marriage was not recognised and the EU commission upheld the decision by the UK courts. You will note that our government does NOT downgrade heterosexual married couples from overseas, but there relationship is always recognised as married without question or exception. The two are NOT the same or interchangeable. Marriage, whether we agree or not, IS the gold standard for relationships in every country on the planet, not civil partnerships. Canada had civil unions long before we had civil partnerships but its government found that although such partnerships offered some comparable degree of equality with marriage, they were found lacking in a lot of areas and were abolished for full marriage recognition. Sweden is about to do the same. With marriage in place for all, Canada never had to lobby for adoption or insurance equality, it came automatically with marriage.But yes, we can agree to disagree or differ. Thank you for the information.Robert, ex-pat Brit.

  16. AngieRs, forgive my grammar, I used “there” instead of the possessive “their” in certain contexts, I’m punch-drunk. Sorry.Robert, ex-pat Brit.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.