Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory Equalities Minister: Final decision not yet made on future of civil partnerships

  • http://chrispower.com Chris Power

    Not everyone in a civil partnership wants the marriage label. Seems to me the most logical course would be to throw open the civil partnership option to every couple, regardless of the gender combination.

    • Rumbelow

      As civil partnerships were created by the government wholly as a sop to religious bigots who refused to back marriage equality at the time then I think civil partnerships should be made available to all couples gay or straight so that heterosexuals are also able to avail themselves of a form of marriage-lite that is so much easier to dissolve than marriage and probably so much more appropriate for many straight couples these days who have demonstrated having a difficulty with long-term commitment.

      Civil partnership must either be opened up to all couples or it must be abolished and existing cp’s must be converted to marriages.

      • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

        Civil partnership is not there to cater to those who have “a difficulty with long-term commitment” any more than marriage is there to make administering male primogeniture simpler. It is no easier to dissolve a civil partnership than a marriage.

        • Rumbelow

          Why are you so sentimental about cp’s ,I don’t get it, explain.

          • de Villiers

            It is more modern and has none of the baggage of a marriage. 42% of straight couples who have a union choose a PACS and 48% choose a marriage.

          • Rumbelow

            And you forgot, it doesn’t travel anywhere.

          • john

            Are you really saying tha tthe main driver for French straight couples (and gay?) chosing PACS is becuase it is “more modern” or are they chosing it becuase it really is quite different to marriage in legal terms?

    • de Villiers

      It is more modern. In France, of all straight people entering into a union, 42% have a PACS and 48% have a marriage.

      In France, PACS were open to all from the start and are extremely popular.

      • allan

        France is a very different country – people think of marriage as part of the papish masterdom and in some ways the revolutionary zeal has never really stopped. PACS are just a form of ‘common law marriage’ we’ve always had those in the UK – even recognised by society. What we are trying to do is make it possible for an LGBT community member to make a formal commitment in the UK that isn’t homophobic in its operation or even title. If I can commit then I want to commit in a way that my UK society understands.
        As someone has ticked the CP box for nearly 10 years – I am just tired of being the same but different.
        The desire of some to commit less is not my issue – my governments promise that I could ne ‘married’ is.

      • john

        PACS was always very, very different to marriage right from the start. Only in recent yrs has PACS even been remotely given the same tax , legal rights as married couples. Please stop suggesting that PACS is the same as a British CP and that simply opening up CPs to straights would have a similar affect as PACS in France.

    • john

      I just don’t think the “marriage label” argument is a strong enough argument to retain CPs ,althought yes ,since we have them , wouldn’t it be easy just to throw them open to all. Although I think it is a confusing concept to explain the difference to anyone nowadays since what does “marriage label” mean to most young people (and probably most older people as well). In addition I’ve never really been able to explain to people what a CP is and usually have to resort to saying it’s gay marriage.
      Surely most people though, gay or straight, want a real alternative to marrige and CPs aren’t that!

  • Robert W. Pierce

    Though I favour opening them up to straight couples, my gut feeling is, since Cameron is opposed to it, the Minister will defer to his boss. It’s up to Miliband and Clegg now to put the pressure on. If I remember correctly, didn’t Tory anti SSM foe Tim Loughton attempt to wreck the marriage bill in third reading by introducing an amendment to make CPs available to straight couples? He denied it of course yet here we are, a year later and we haven’t heard any more from him on this one. I would have thought he’d be among the first to push for straight access to CPs. The only conclusion I can draw is that his support wasn’t genuine and indeed was seeking to derail the marriage legislation.

    • Rumbelow

      The distinguishing feature of a CP is that it was invented and intended as the equivalent of straight marriage for gay couples before marriage equality was introduced, how then would a CP for a straight couple be distinguishable from any ordinary marriage exactly?

      • de Villiers

        It is more modern and does not have the historical baggage, unequal partnership history and religious basis of a marriage,

        • allan

          Apart from the gay baggage that comes with it. Do you think that when you tick the CP box people don’t immediately know you are a pair of ‘queers’.

          • de Villiers

            They would not if it was open to all.

          • allan

            bet they still would and I can’t imagine ‘joe straight’ being comfortable explaining his partner was a ‘real’ woman and not another man. It too late to change the perception of CPs as a ‘gay marriage’.

    • allan

      Or Robert, that Loughton knows more about what is going on than we do.

      • Robert W. Pierce

        My take on Loughton is that he never really supported CPs for straights and if he were so enthused for them he would have been making it an issue after equal marriage was passed. Not one word from him regarding the consultation, not one word in regard to Javid’s statement. Since 2004 up until 2013, he never even campaigned or raised the issue in Parliament to allow everyone access to CPs. He’s just another swivel eyed religious Tory loon.

        • allan

          But I do wonder if all the tory haters have been let in on the little secret about the true reason for the delay in allowing conversion of CP’s to happen. I think and fear todays announcement about the consultation is the first step to announcing a further delay to the start date of converting CP’s. Easy now to say they want to combine the two issues in one future decision.
          There is more to all this than administrative delays it’s being used as some sort of political game and I suspect we’ll all see soon enough why.

  • Russ T

    Disgraceful – the govt is clearly intending to kick the issue of CPs into the long grass hoping we will all somehow forget about it, as they don’t want to upset the bigotted right wingers in the party the year before a general election.

    The most equitable thing is to allow those who *want* to convert their CP to a marriage to do so, to allow those whom want to retain their CP to be able to do so, and finally to allow straights to have a CP should they want one.

    • MikeLDS

      Just wish a government Minister would come out and be very specific about what is actually holding up the conversions of CP’s to marriage. We just get “woolly” comments about the need to look at other legislation that needs to be amended. I am afraid that really does not hold water with me.

      If my partner and myself get our CP dissolved tomorrow and then get married in two weeks time, everything would be above board and we would be entitled to all the benefits that would ensue. So what the problem with implementing an administrative process to save us all that trouble?

      Great pity that Elton John and his partner, and other “high profile” couples are not making more noise about this as I am sure that things would then begin to happen very quickly.

      Anyway, when 2015 comes along and my local MP, who ignores my correspondence on this, I will happily say “sorry, but I cannot support somebody who has not supported me on this matter.

      • allan

        totally agree – I suspect there is a political agenda to these delays. I cannot understand why the legislation is in place for new marriages and for overseas marriages to be recognised but not for the conversion of existing UK CPs- that was part of the Act.
        I also don’t understand why more of the 64,000 couples in CPs are not making a fuss.
        And I wholeheartedly agree that all those MPs, Lords and Ministers who fail to even bother replying have shown a total lack of concern or any grasp of equality and fairness.
        I am angry and will show it in 2015 on my ballot paper.

      • Binary_Sleuth

        We can’t just end our CPs “tomorrow” as it is actually quite difficult to dissolve a CP (https://www.gov.uk/end-civil-partnership/grounds-for-ending-a-civil-partnership)

        It would also mean that there was a break in the legal relationship if we dissolved it, so all the benefits that we are entitled to would only apply from the date of the new marriage rather than from the date of our original Civil Partnership.

        I don’t think it’s “woolly” of the government to say that they are looking at other legislation that needs to be amended – I’d rather they got it right than rushing it. Allan – see my comment above… the minister Helen Grant has said that the conversions are taking longer because they involve “developing and implementing completely new procedures and processes, and that this contrasts with the work to make new marriages possible where they where we were able to build on existing processes so implementation was more straightforward.” I suppose that makes sense. They probably just copied straight marriage for gay people – but conversions are different.

        • allan

          Sorry but why are they so different if they were supposed to have been the same.
          Please don’t use ministers standard empty response as the reason. I’ve worked in Government policy implementation – they can change whole tax regimes in less than a year or create whole welfare programmes in 6 months.
          It stinks of revenge or total incompetence to me

      • Paul Kirwan

        Even if you got married you would still not have pensions equality. This is a much more important issue than the CP/Marriage debate. I don’t want to die before they sort this mess out and leave my partner without a share of my pension.

  • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

    Phasing out civil partnership was part of the Tory rhetoric when they were arguing for same sex marriage. For the moment however, there is nothing to be gained politically from any change. Since any choice will upset at least as many people as it pleases I expect the government will try very hard to do nothing at all.

    Personally, I think that if/when the time comes I would rather have a civil partnership than a marriage and so I hope they will be retained. I’m somewhat bemused to find myself on the same side as the Church of England on this one. I think apathy may win the day.

    • Rumbelow

      Equality demands that cp’s be available to all couples or they must be abolished.

      • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

        Fairness demands that they be available to all. But I suspect that it’s closed season for equality and fairness.

        • allan

          why would a straight couple want a gay compromise – it’s not real – no straight dreams of ‘gay marriage’.

          • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

            No gay person dreams of having a “gay marriage” either. Some may want a marriage, some may want something else, but that’s the same regardless of sexual orientation. Having created a something else, it is not fairness to take it away from those who have embraced it.

          • Rumbelow

            Why not simply unembrace cp’s, only ever a stop-gap measure, embrace marriage instead?

          • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

            Why not simply embrace civil partnership and repeal the same-sex marriage act?

          • Rumbelow

            You haven’t yet told me what a cp gives you that converting it to marriage will take away.

          • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

            Self-determination

            The argument for same-sex marriage can be reduced to “we should respect the choices of those same-sex couples who wish to be married”. That runs both ways. People do not have to justify their attitude to relationships or their recognition to deserve respect for their views.

          • Rumbelow

            Sounds like simple bloody mindedness is your only reason then.

          • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

            Please tell me what part of “let’s take other people’s relationship choices away from them” is anything other than the basest hypocrisy on your part?

            You still haven’t actually explained what’s so important about marriage either.

          • Rumbelow

            From my point of view it is all about equality, if one person has a right to something then all persons must have the same right.
            I’m fine with cp’s for both straight and same sex couples but you keep saying there is no difference between marriage and a cp and if that is the case I just don’t see why you so want to keep a cp or why any straight couple would opt for one instead of marriage.
            Are you saying that since 2004 you have established a new gay tradition that cannot be changed, you just feel very sentimental about having your cp or what? … I don’t understand you.
            I would like to understand you.

          • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

            In legal effect, the difference between a marriage and a civil partnership is trivial (and mostly nomenclature). The values and connotation differs somewhat, which is why some people may prefer one or the other.

            It is all about equality, that’s why I campaigned for same-sex marriage even though I don’t want one. Everyone should have the same options and the same opportunities. If you want to be married then good for you. But I don’t see any reason to prefer marriage for myself, and you’ve offered none.

          • Rumbelow

            Equality. I’ve said it from the start and you seem to agree on equality whilst also wanting to retain a spacial institution called a cp.

          • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

            Equality would seem to demand that you have the same respect for my choices as I have for yours.

          • Rumbelow

            As you don’t seem to have any rational reason for clinging to the cp, I can only imagine it’s a sentimental reason. You didn’t have the legal choice of marriage or a cp when you and your partner got cp’d though. it was cp or nothing.

          • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

            I do not need to justify my beliefs about relationships to you. As LGBT people should know better than most, you do not get to demand that of others.

            You have still failed to tell me why I should prefer a marriage to a civil partnership, nor why you have any interest in taking that choice from me.

          • Rumbelow

            Keep your wretched cp, so long as cp’s are available to all then its fine with me otherwise it is a dubious privilege just specially for gay couples and in that case I think cp’s should be abolished, all of them with existing ones converted to marriage or dissolved.

          • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

            So, no actual intrinsic merit to marriage over civil partnership then? Glad we got that cleared up.

            I do agree that civil partnership should be available to all couples. I hope that we’ll see progress on that in the next couple of months, although political expediency may dictate otherwise. However, I do not believe that abolition is a fair choice. As for automatic conversion, that’s wholly unacceptable and likely to prove costly once it’s been through every court we have a name for to get it undone.

          • Rumbelow

            I value marriage, I don’t personally regard cp’s as equal to marriage as they are special and separate and therefore discriminatory in nature, so I think there is an intrinsic value to marriage equality that a cp doesn’t and cannot hold presently.
            Also if cp’s are made available to straight couples it will make it obvious that cp’s are not the equivalent of marriage but a form of marriage lite, I don’t think they will be allowed for this reason.

            I absolutely do value my parents marriage, all my siblings have been married, even my nieces and nephews have married, some of them more than once, while I as a gay man was never able to marry the person of my choice.

            I want the same right to marry the person of my choice as my parents had, my siblings had and my nieces and nephews have had and even though I have no-one to marry presently, I don’t want a special , separate but sort of equal institution if eventually I do meet someone I want to commit with in… yes, marriage

          • allan

            well said

          • de Villiers

            A CP is more modern and better reflects the equality between my partner and I as partners than the more old fashioned marriage.

            It is the same in France, which is why 42% of couples choosing a union choose a PACS and 48% choose a marriage.

          • Rumbelow

            you keep repeating the same thing de Villiers, PACs and CP’s are not the equivalent of each other and neither travel.

          • Rumbelow

            Equality is not about respect, it is about equal rights. Civility would demand I tolerate your choices and I do. The thing is I don’t understand your reasons for your choice and nothing you have said has helped me to understand your choice.
            You must by now understand that CP’s for opposite sex couples are an irrelevance,( CP’s being the equivalent of marriage for same sex couples before marriage equality was introduced) so as a CP loses it’s meaning for an opposite sex couple who always had the right to marry that means they can only be a separate but equal institution specially for those same sex couples already in a CP, an anomaly and leftover from a form of marriage apartheid.

          • Robert W. Pierce

            I fully support CPs for all in addition to equal marriage, but there’s a larger picture that most have overlooked. In this upwardly mobile global community, the rights provided by a British CP would not be entirely reciprocated in any country where there is a) equal marriage or b) civil unions only for gay people. Just compare our CPs to the French PACS as one example, the latter conveying about half of the rights to the former. They just aren’t as portable as marriage once you step foot outside the UK and many gay Brits work outside the country. What needs to happen is a universal standard for the varying degrees of non-marital unions, but I just don’t see that happening when marriage seems to be the trend in regard to gay people. Denmark, the first country to introduce civil unions for both orientations in 1989 abolished them in 2009 when equal marriage became law. Others may well follow suit. The Netherlands is currently mulling it. Whether some agree or not, marriage will always be the universal gold standard.

          • Rumbelow

            CP’s for straight couples don’t make sense, they were supposedly the equivalent of straight marriage for gay couples when gay couples were barred from marriage, so it’s illogical to make them available to straight couples now we all have access to marriage… cp’s are obsolete.

          • de Villiers

            What you have said Allan is wrong. If you look at France you can see the reality rather than trying to guess and guess wrongly. Of all straight couples who choose a union, 42% choose a PACS and 48% choose a marriage.

          • allan

            France is a very different country – people think of marriage as part of the papish masterdom and in some ways the revolutionary zeal has never really stopped. PACS are just a form of ‘common law marriage’ we’ve always had those in the UK – even recognised by society. What we are trying to do is make it possible for an LGBT community member to make a formal commitment in the UK that isn’t homophobic in its operation or even title. If I can commit then I want to commit in a way that my UK society understands.
            As someone who has ticked the CP box for nearly 10 years – I am just tired of being the same but different.
            The desire of some to commit less is not my issue – my governments promise that I could be ‘married’ is.

        • Rumbelow

          Fairness demands that all couples should have access to marriage regardless of whether they are same sex couples or opposite sex couples, the introduction of marriage equality has achieved this.

  • allan

    I guess this might be another delaying tactic for the already agreed conversion to marriage of those who want to – and I sure don’t want to be in a ‘partnership’ when I could be married – to be delayed until the outcome of the consultation is announced.
    My biggest fear is that if UKIP and the Tories form an alliance to gain power at the next election not only will I be stuck in something I no longer want, those who did manage to get married will be converted to CP – betya that wouldn’t take them 5 minutes to organise.
    We are running out of time on the whole conversion issue and no one seems that bothered. I can’t believe that of the 64,000 couples in CPs more aren’t making a fuss about the delay – or am I the only one who feels let down.

    • Trans Fan and Proud

      I feel let down too. I think that those of us who committed ourselves to each other in a civil partnership are being treated very badly indeed. We want to convert it to a marriage and can’t do so yet.

    • john

      I feel let down too and I agree PN and no-one seems to give a toss, as soon as they got marriages they seem to forget about the majority of us in CPs who want to convert. We just get fobbed off with excuses and ridiculous timetables.

    • D.McCabe

      I am feeling let down by this delay too as I want to be able to convert my CP to marriage. I am fed up with waiting to find out what I will need to do.

    • Binary_Sleuth

      From Hansard in April 2014:

      Simon Kirby: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities when she plans to bring forward legislative proposals to enable LGBT people in civil partnerships to convert these to marriages as defined in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013; and if she will make a statement. [195370]

      Mrs Grant: Our priority has been to ensure that same-sex couples who were not currently in a civil partnership and who had been waiting to marry in order to formalise their relationship were able to do so as soon as possible. Therefore our focus has been on enabling marriages to take place and this happened several months earlier than anticipated. The first marriages of same-sex couples took place on 29 March 2014.

      We are working hard to ensure that couples wanting to convert their civil partnerships into marriages are able to do so as soon as possible. We aim to do this before the end of 2014.

      These aspects of implementing the Act take longer because they involve developing and implementing completely new procedures and processes. This contrasts with the work to make new marriages for same-sex couples possible, where we were able to build on existing processes so implementation was more straightforward.

      • allan

        So she felt that getting couples – who could have entered a CP if they had wanted – married urgent was of such importance they got it early.
        Well lady I’ve been waiting to get married since Dec 2005 and think I deserve just as much urgency as those now able to marry.
        The excuse is pitiful and the cut and paste they all use crap. It’s rubbish – there is a political agenda that takes away the joy of a win for equality.

    • Paul Kirwan

      I don’t care what label they give us, but I do care that we still haven’t got pension equality. This is a much more important issue than what we call our unions. Write to your MP and demand pensions equality.

  • David Greensmith

    Pathetic that they are taking so long.

  • CRW

    Go on, be brave, scrap them. They are sh*t.

    • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

      And what will that achieve?

      • allan

        fairness maybe

        • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

          It’s fair to compel people in civil partnerships who do not wish to marry, to either be married or be single?

          • Rumbelow

            What does a cp give you that marriage doesn’t?… please explain.

          • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

            What does a marriage give you that a civil partnership doesn’t? There’s no change in legal rights, unless you’re worried about getting a courtesy title.

            To my mind my partner will always be my partner, not anything else.

          • Rumbelow

            If there is no change why make a precious fuss about keeping a cp, you make no sense. You can call your partner whatever you like either way.

          • de Villiers

            It is more modern. In France, of all straight people entering into a union, 42% have a PACS and 48% have a marriage.

          • Rumbelow

            A PACS is not the equivalent of a CP, and neither travel anywhere.

          • john

            Except PACS isn’t like a CP, would you really see the same effect in the UK where CPs are identical to marriages?
            I think comparing other places where straights have the option of a particular kind of registered partnerships which is also available to gays is pointless becuase generally their form of registered partnerships is not like the British CP. CPs are British, unique!

          • allan

            yes – one thing for all – why should we be different.

    • john

      Agree, scrap them and introduce a proper alternative like the French PACs, open to gays and straights. What’s the point of having two identical things with just a different name?

  • atalanta

    I am in favour of grandfathering CPs.

    My main reason for this is that I think we _do_ need some form of marriage-lite. CPs are not that. CPs bring very similar rights and responsibilities to marriage, are similarly hard to end, and may imply a lifelong financial commitment.

    Many couples need some form of domestic partnership like the French PACS – a marriage-lite – which is easy to get into, easy to get out of and brings only limited responsibilities and rights.

    In my view, it will be far too confusing to offer both CPs and PACS-style partnerships. If we can only have one of the two, I’d rather inconvenience the very small number of people who’d prefer a civil partnership to a civil marriage in order to benefit the very large number of people for whom the PACS model would really help with issues like inheritance, next of kin status etc.

    • Rumbelow

      Those couple’s who opt retain their grandfathered cp’s, if it’s made an option, will face all sorts of complications when they travel abroad … jolly good luck to them!

      • allan

        I fear that we might all be left in CP’s if the current government have their way.
        I can never understand the attachment some people seem to have for a system that was a homophobic compromise.
        People have always been able to create domestic partnerships and have them legally recognised – I have straight friends who have been in what they themselves call a ‘common law marriage’ for 15 years. They are accepted as husband and wife.
        It’s weird though that for years people have accepted straight couples in a common law marriage as being in a formal relationship yet LGBTs would never get away with saying we were in a ‘common law marriage’.
        So I’m 100% for throwing CP into sh*t pit of history and lets all be married or not, as the individual prefers.

    • allan

      CPs will forever be seen as ‘gay marriage’ – why would any straight want to tick the CP box on forms and then have to explain it’s a ‘straight marriage’.

  • http://www.equality-network.org Equality Network

    We are expecting that in Scotland, CP to marriage conversion will be available at the same time as same-sex marriage becomes available, around the end of this year. That’s what the Scottish Govt have said they expect. It would be embarrassing for the UK Govt not to make conversion available in England and Wales by then, especially since the England/Wales same-sex marriage bill was passed and got royal assent eight months before the Scottish one. On the future of CP, the Equality Network strongly supports opening up CP to all couples regardless of gender – that’s a fair solution and one that gives maximum choice. To those who think there’s no benefit to CP, and so question why CPs needed at all, we would say fine, that’s your view and no-one will force you to have a CP (once marriage including CP conversion is fully available). But surely it’s not reasonable to deny the option of CP to others just because you don’t understand why they want it. After all, that was one of the justifications for denying us equal rights in the first place: people in power who couldn’t understand why LGB people wanted same-sex relationships.

    • john

      But CPs were introduced to give gay people the same rights as married couples without giving them the word marriage beucase at that time it was politically unacceptable. Straight CPs were ditched because they weren’t needed becuase straights could get married anyway. Now that we have SSM then we too can get married , hence CPs have become redundant. Fight for an aternative system for all, like the French PACS. That’s what we all need not some alternative name to marriage which gives us no extra benefit.

      • http://www.equality-network.org Equality Network

        Your view is that CP is now redundant, and you’re entitled to it – you won’t be forced into a CP. Lots of people disagree though. In our survey of LGBT people in Scotland, 1 in 4 said they’d prefer a CP even if same-sex marriage was available with the same legal rights. In the Netherlands, where marriage and registered partnership have virtually the same legal rights, 1 in 4 same-sex couples and 1 in 9 mixed-sex couple go for registered partnership rather than marriage. There is a significant demand.
        There is another reason for keeping CP too: if CP is no longer available, there will no longer be any legal recognition in this country for the relationships of people in registered partnerships from other countries. They can’t be recognised as marriages, because they’re not marriages. At the moment they’re recognised as CPs (same-sex ones are anyway).

        • allan

          People lie when asked a question . in 5 years no one will tick a CP box if they have alternatives. It was and always will be a homophobic stopgap to full equality.
          If straights want something else then let them fight for it – it seems LGBTs are a little too keen to take up other battles that are nothing to do with us – most straight don’t give a F**k about CPs for all.
          Can we fight our own battles and forget about people who are in the majority and will fight themselves if they want something.

          • http://www.equality-network.org Equality Network

            We have a more positive view of the value of asking LGBTI people what they want! The stats from the Netherlands speak for themselves, but of course the future is never certain. With respect to fighting our own battles, the Equality Network is an LGBTI organisation, and lots of LGBTI people are in mixed-sex relationships.

        • john

          The UK does not recognise straight foreign registered partnerships at the moment but this is the first time that we seem to be concerned about them. The UK has always converted foreign SSM and gay civil unions to a British CP, it has never recognised foreign registered partnerships. A PACS, for instance, is NOT a CP. Why shouldn’t the UK now convert all foreing civil unions to marriages? I’m assuming when the govt suggests scrapping CPs then they are going to cater for foreing civil unions in some way.
          Your survey covers LGBT people only. It wll be interesting to see what the govt consultation shows which will be much broader. It will be also interesting to see what take-up of new CPs there has been since the introduction of SSMs. I don’t know what the Dutch CPs is like. The key point to marriage as opposed to something like PACS for instance is that PACS are much easier to get out of, they are basically contracts drawn up between 2 people. Marriages are a pooling of resources and are much harder to dissolve. This is what many people find attractive to a PACS rather than a marriage. CPs don’t give you this.

        • Rumbelow

          The situation is that CP’s were invented as the equivalent of a straight couples marriage for a gay couple who was at the tme barred from marrying, a CP for a straight couple would just be a marriage, the distinguishing feature of a CP us that ir was invented for same sex couples,so it is total nonsense to open CP’s to opposite sex couples for this reason.

  • https://www.facebook.com/monica.cassidy.3 monica

    I’m convinced that this whole row will keep on rumbling on due to the ongoing power of the church and their influence on state and in particular on Tories (and therefore UKIP). The triple lock provided a loophole for the church in effect not to be part of the requirement for equality.

    I’ve said this in Pink News before, but I say again:

    … equality is not something which is divisible, you can’t divide it, slice it up or cherry-pick from it. If you support one strand of equality then you must support all of it.

    Religious groups should never have been allowed to perform marriage for some folk without making the same service available to all.

    The rights of any individual or group should never be allowed allowed to trump the equality of others. This is a complete lack of respect for the general principle of equality.

    I say this; before scrapping CPs, concentrate on the scrapping of the triple lock and make the legal requirement that any couple who have a legitimate case to marry should be free to marry where they wish.

    Religious belief is no basis for bigotry.

    How bloody dare they think otherwise.

    • Guest

      ”I say this; before scrapping CPs, concentrate on the scrapping of the triple lock and make the legal requirement that any couple who have a legitimate case to marry should be free to marry where they wish.”

      You cannot force churches to do things against their will

      • http://www.transfigurations.co.uk Carol Steele

        In general, forcing people to do things against their will is not a good thing. However, when that body of people hold a position of privileged power then sometimes it is correct to force them into doing things against their will – for the common good.

  • barry

    I am a surviving CP with a spouse pension from my late partners employment. If they abolish CP’s that would leave me in Legal Limbo, I cant upgrade my CP to marriage but need CP status to recieve the spouse pension.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all