A lost opportunity to end inequality for all those who co-habit yet do not enjoy the same legal rights as married people. The absence of a lobby group should not preclude government from enacting equality legislation.Originally Posted by returning officer
Are you still claiming that you would be surprised if people opposed extending civil partnerships to co-habiting family members?
In any case what exactly are you proposing? That a brother and sister (or brother and brother or father and daughter) should be allowed to register a civil partnership? What if one of the parties subsequently wants to marry? Would they have to divorce their brother / sister / father first? What if one of the parties is cared for by the other? Would they have to be assessed for benefits jointly rather than separately and hence potentially be a lot worse off than otherwise (remember marriage / partnerships bring responsibilites as well as rights)? Why should a brother and sister have to resort to a "gay" civil partnership rather than a "straight" marriage?
If you really are concerned about issues relating to co-habiting family members then you should campaign to get the relevant legislation amended rather than trying to tack it all on to a bill which will be introduced for a completely different purpose. If on the other hand you are simply a raving homophobe who would try any old argument to try to wreck important equality legislation then please do carry on in your role as the Ann Widdecombe of the site.
It is not just family members are affected.Are you still claiming that you would be surprised if people opposed extending civil partnerships to co-habiting family members?
One of my close neighbours are two men who were formerly resident patients in a hospital for handicapped children. They in the 40's and are now self-supporting and live together.
I don't think they are a homosexual couple (not that their sexual lives are anybody's business). They have no rights as a couple.
I fail to understand why you would want to exclude these people from very important legislation.
You can still be a homosexual lobbyist and have compassion for other people. They are not mutually exclusive.
[quote=White Horse]It is not just family members are affected.Are you still claiming that you would be surprised if people opposed extending civil partnerships to co-habiting family members?
One of my close neighbours are two men who were formerly resident patients in a hospital for handicapped children. They in the 40's and are now self-supporting and live together.
I don't think they are a homosexual couple (not that their sexual lives are anybody's business). They have no rights as a couple.
I fail to understand why you would want to exclude these people from very important legislation.[/quote:24ty5g77] What exactly would stop them from registering a civil partnership? Do you think the state is going to ask for confirmation of an active sexual relationship before allowing a civil partnership?
Civil partnership legislation would allow (same-sex) couples to register as partners in the same way as (opposite-sex) couples can marry. What on earth would make you think otherwise?
Btw - are you sure that these people would be better off as registered partners rather than individuals who happened to live together? (And ps - your original post on the topic only mentioned family members.)
You really are Ann Widdecombe and I claim my £5.
Earlier posters made the point that same sex unions should assume a conjugal relationship. It is conceivable that potential heterosexual same sex partners many not want the inference of being in a sexual union with each other.
I am trying to make the case for a wide definition of civil union/partnership that is inclusive rather the exclusive.
I thought Anne Widdecombe was a gay iconYou really are Ann Widdecombe and I claim my £5.
Surely people are simply arguing for a same-sex equivalent to marriage. You dont have to be in a sexual relationship, or prove that you are in one, to get married so why should that be different for civil partnerships? (Indeed how, practically, could it be?)Earlier posters made the point that same sex unions should assume a conjugal relationship. It is conceivable that potential heterosexual same sex partners many not want the inference of being in a sexual union with each other.But you dont seem to be trying to make the case that opposite-sex family members (eg brother and sister) should be allowed to marry. Why not? Are you really interested in the rights of this group or simply trying to make potential civil partnership legislation unworkable?
[quote="White Horse
It is not just family members are affected. One of my close neighbours are two men who were formerly resident patients in a hospital for handicapped children. They in the 40's and are now self-supporting and live together. I don't think they are a homosexual couple (not that their sexual lives are anybody's business). They have no rights as a couple.
[/quote]
But White Horse it is really simple: they are not a couple!!!
They might need 'protection' of some sort, but it is simply nothing to do with lesbian and gay issues. The point of proposed Civil Union or Partnership is to create a legal protection for same-sex couples who living in loving relationships - the issue could not be clearer.
If you want to discuss the calibre of partnership, then we can talk about the models used in other countries, but whether brothers, sister, etc. is not at issue.
Two blokes out of an asylum are just living in the same house: if we can assume so, they don't have a relationship. If you want to suggest that people should be able to leave their wealth, property etc., to whoever they want (and not necessarily their wife, husband or partner) you won't have any objection from me on that (because it is an obstacle to equality), but it is not helpful to conflate a tax/inheritance constraint with sexuality. Family member already have inheritance rights within the law at present, so what's the point of including them? A case was taken by elderly sisters on this issue (in the UK I think) and it was dismissed.
The fundamental issue is sexuality: and relying on the view that sexuality is a 'private' issue (and doesn't have a place in politics) misses the point completely. At present the State does not allow two gay men or two lesbians to claim rights as a couple, whereas two heterosexuals can and are entitled to significant rights.
In case there is confusion, talking about sexuality is not to discuss sexual acts but it is about how we relate to intimacy and want to live our lives. Whatever our sexuality, the choice of who we live with should entitle us to legal protections like everyone else. As lesbians and gay men, we have to 'go public' about our sexuality to win and ensure our 'private' rights - it may sound odd to mix up the public/ private spheres, but it is necessary to make political claims about our lives.
Er, never mind the issue of why you might seek to deny these men the right to enter a civil partnership the more pressing question seems to be how you would achieve this?! How on earth could these men be distinguished from a gay couple who were living together and wanted a partnership? Do you foresee the state asking questions about the sex lives of couples seeking to register partnerships?!But White Horse it is really simple: they are not a couple!!!
If one was a man and the other a woman do you think they should not be allowed to marry?
Interesting post.
You seem to want the State to look into your private life; to make a judgement on your sexuality.
I don't understand this, maybe I would have to be a homosexual to understand.
To me a civil union is all about mutual interdependance and nothing to do with sex. To you it is all about sex.
a definition of famliy;
"two or more people bound by ties of blood and/or mutual affection"
would you object if that was in the constitution?
“A healthy social life is found only, when in the mirror of each soul the whole community finds its reflection, and when in the whole community the virtue of each one is living”
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote