Civil partnerships - what form?

[dubsthcentralboy]

The Government commited in the 'Programme for Government' to bringing forward legalisation to give recognition to some form of civil partnership. The question I have is: 'What form should this legal recognition take?'

I'd be very much in favour of a form of partnership that gives extensive rights to as many people as possible who are living in non-traditional relationships/households.

I think that whatever the Government proposes should not be based on conjugality (i.e. having sex). I think that any two persons living in a 'caring and dependant' relationship should be afforded whatever benefits will be on offer. For example, there may be elderly sibling who are living in an evidently caring relationship who depend on eachother financially (to meet rent payments, for example) and should receive certain tax and inheritance benefits to ease their burdens. Similarily, a daughter or son living with an elderly parent should be able to avail of the benefits offered by a civil partnership re: inheritance etc.

It would be, in my opinion, unfair to exclude these categories from such partnerships and narrowly define the nature of partnerships to include only sexual relationships.

Of course, before I'm accused otherwise, I would obvioulsy have these partnerships open to gay couples and straight couples who do not wish to marry.

[White Horse]

The sexuality of the relationship is a private matter between the people cocerned. It is not the business of the State.

I agree that co-dependeant siblings or co-habiting family members should be allowed to form a civil union.

I would be very surprised if the homosexual lobby disagreed.

[dubsthcentralboy]

...

[Papinian]

I would like something like the French PACS (pacte civil de solidarité). That's open to gay or straight couples and is

The PACS has obtained reasonably broad support in France. The leading politician opposing its introduction, Christine Boutin, is now the FrenchMinister of Housing and the City, and the only supporter of its introduction on the right, Roselyne Bachelot, is now the French Minister of Health, which shows the people were able to move on after the debate.

In 2006 the French parliament recommended increasing some rights given in PACS in areas such as property rights, laws of succession and taxation, but maintaining prohibitions against marriage, adoption, and access to medically-assisted reproduction for same-sex couples.

I'm quite socially conservative but think there is a socially conservative case for legal recognition of gay relationships. However, I believe that a gradualist approach such as the PACS is a good way to go.

[flakie]

I think the government should only authorise civil unions and get the hell out of marriage altogether.

That way anyone can have a civil union who is old enough to sign a legal contract and the churches can marry whomever they damn well please and everyone will be happy.

[Pericles]

I think the government should only authorise civil unions and get the hell out of marriage altogether.

That way anyone can have a civil union who is old enough to sign a legal contract and the churches can marry whomever they damn well please and everyone will be happy.

That seems like the wisest option, but can you imagine the headlines? "Minister Moves to Ban Marriage", etc...

[Whig]

I think the government should only authorise civil unions and get the hell out of marriage altogether.

That way anyone can have a civil union who is old enough to sign a legal contract and the churches can marry whomever they damn well please and everyone will be happy.

That seems like the wisest option, but can you imagine the headlines? "Minister Moves to Ban Marriage", etc...

I'd have to disagree. I know you would withdraw the state back a little bit more than I would in a few cases, in general because I see that society isn't something artificial (I don't mean to assert that you do, I could probably discuss it in greater detail another time). Part of this is that, even tho love is quite an individual affair, people who marry want to make an open statement, and that if the state withdraws from civil marriages, it would leave granting of the term marriage to certain organizations, namely churches or the Humanist Association, and I for one would like to get married but not like to do in any form than in front of a judge or another local official (or I suppose a sea captain if it happened like that, but you get my point).

On the topic in question, I see no reason to deny that to a gay couple either.

[flakie]

I think the government should only authorise civil unions and get the hell out of marriage altogether.

That way anyone can have a civil union who is old enough to sign a legal contract and the churches can marry whomever they damn well please and everyone will be happy.

That seems like the wisest option, but can you imagine the headlines? "Minister Moves to Ban Marriage", etc...

See, the wrong person wrote that press release! It should be, "minister grants full religious freedom in marriage debate"

[FutureTaoiseach]

If you separate legal-recognition from conjugation you are saying that gay relationships are less legitimate than straight ones and that is wrong. There is nothing wrong with being gay. I favour civil-unions as a step towards something called gay/same-sex marriage. It should entitle each partner to first-of-kin inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, property-rights and joint tax-returns. I think society as a whole benefits from stable-relationships be they str8 or gay, and so all such conjugal relationships are equally deserving of the conferral of legitimacy of them by the State. Comparison with relationships of a non-conjugal nature is inappropriate.

[irishpeoplearewhingers]

I would like the see them do just a bit more than nothing. Give gay couples who wish register their relationships the same rights and obligations as married ones, and then step back. I can't wait to see the reaction if adoption becomes widespread...that's when the real fun will start.