web analytics

OH DEAR

By ATWadmin On November 14th, 2009

Straight couple demand civil partnership

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. As His Grace says:

And so another ‘hierarchy of rights’ battle begins.

But Cranmer prophesies that the heterosexuals will lose. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is clear on eligibility:

3.1 Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if—
(a) they are not of the same sex,
(b) either of them is already a civil partner or lawfully married,
(c) either of them is under 16, or
(d) they are within prohibited degrees of relationship.

The Act is inherently discriminatory, or ‘heterophobic’ and ‘offensive’, as Peter Tatchell says (and whatever one may think about him, he is at least consistent).

They really ought to have left things alone, oughtn’t they?

24 Responses to “OH DEAR”

  1. What a daft post. Civil Partnerships are the method by which 2 people of the same gender can have their relationship recognised officially. Marraige is the method by which 2 people of opposite genders can have their relationship recognised officially. There is nothing ‘phobic’ about either entity. Both are equally accomodating and equally discrimnatory. So what ? There is rightly a place in society for both statutes. It’s called choice.

  2. Colm –

    Aye, civil partnerships are indeed "the method by which 2 people of the same gender can have their relationship recognised officially" as set out in the Act (see post).

    Therefore they discriminate against heterosexuals, do they not?

  3. Strictly speaking No . The Civil Partnership act discriminates according to gender , just as the Marraige act does. Nothing to do with sexuality. 2 heterosexual men (or women) can have a civil partnership, and a gay man and lesbian woman can get married.

  4. Not quite, Lord Colm. The explicit intention of the Act is to put same-sex partnerships on an equal legal footing as marriage.

    But save me a rapid collision between forehead and desk, please: the Act is discriminatory, yes?

  5. Pete

    No need to bang head on desk. Just read what I have written. In both of my comments I have said that yes it is discriminatory. Do you have a problem with that ?

  6. Clearly not, I am a bigot after all.

    You’ve gone from decrying the post as "daft" to agreeing with it.

    bangs head on desk …

  7. eh ?

    I haven’t agreed with it at all. I don’t have a problem with the legal situation regarding marraige and civil partnerships. You are the one stating that the Civil Partnership laws should never have been introduced (they really ought to have left things alone) because they have only caused controversy by discriminating against a particular segment of the population. I have argued that yes of course they discriminate just as the Marraige Act does. Should Marraige be done away with for the same reason ?

    You really have been banging your head on that desk too much

  8. PS You are not a bigot, just not yet enlightened enough to agree with me 😉

  9. At least Pete has demonstrated that it isn’t really marriage he cares about but gays.

  10. I don’t really know what Pete is trying to demonstrate here. Whatever argument he tries to throw against civil partnerships can equally be thrown at Marraiges. He’s onto a loser however he tries to play it.

  11. Colm –

    You don’t know because you’re interested in digging me out rather than reading the post.

    Civil partnerships are intended to put homosexual relationships on an equal footing with marriage, yes? Yet in overcoming the supposed discrimination inherent in marriage against homosexuals, the proponents of civil partnerships themselves discriminate against heterosexuals (since only those of the same sex are eligible to register as civil partners).

    Strewth, it’s like taking remedial class.

    Now stop buggering about.

  12. Pete

    You need lessons before you can qualify for remedial class. Your argument about whether civil partnerships put homosexual relationships on an equal footing with heterosexual marraiges is irrelevent nonsense. How on earth do you define such things. All relationships are different and cannot be measured like bags of bloody flour. Is Jordan and Peter Andre’s marraige superior to the long term homosexual couple who have ben together faithfully and lovingly for 40 years ? Is the gay celebrity Civil partnership that falls apart after 6 weeks equal to the loving marraige of Ethel and Albert who have loved each other dearly for 60 years. Stop looking at things in terms of technicalities and start seeing people as individuals and viewing their relationships according to the love and happiness they share as humans and not simply ticking boxes based on what gender coupling they make up.

  13. Your argument about whether civil partnerships put homosexual relationships on an equal footing with heterosexual marraiges is irrelevent nonsense.

    It’s the intent of the Act.

    Stop looking at things in terms of technicalities and start seeing people as individuals …

    I’m talking of the Act. Oh for the State to regard us as individuals.

  14. Oh Pete poor poor Pete. You are all over the place. Your last sentence is an indication that the state should not make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, something I know you don’t believe as all your previous comments on this topic on ATW have indicated. I should have warned you to quit hours ago before you got into such a muddle 😉

  15. Are you pissed?

  16. Pete, Colm is correct, you do seem an incy wincy bit mixed up !

  17. Pete

    No, but I bet you are pissed off at having been so comprehensively defeated on this one.

  18. I must be talking Swahili.

    3.1 Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if—
    (a) they are not of the same sex,

    Looks quite discriminatory to me, against heterosexuals and siblings, all of whom are denied the contractual benefits the state is willing to confer on homosexuals.

    Time for an activist judge to strike it down.

  19. Dear oh dear oh dear!

    How difficult is it to get a simple message through to you. What is different about the defintions of the Civil Partnership act that does not also apply to the Marriage Act ?.

    For hundreds of years the Marraige Acts gave contractual benefits to ‘heterosexuals’ (we’ll go with your definition even though it’s inaccurate) and discriminated against homosexuals and siblings, but it’s only when an alternative legal status is enacted which mirrors that discrimination that you suddenly find a problem with it.

  20. Pete

    When you’re in a hole ….. ;o)

  21. Keep digging Pete 🙂

  22. Lost your shovel Pete ?

  23. Gentlemen,
    I thought that marriage has always been regarded by every society as the joining of a man and a woman in a relatonship usually leading to children being born of their union.
    This cannot happen (without help) for two people of the same sex, so cannot really be regarded as marriage.
    To say that those participating in a marriage relationship are therefore discriminating against homosexuals, means that it also discriminates against those who do not marry- but are nort homosexual.

    Personally, accepting that people are homosexual does not for me mean society has to give them some legitimacy by inventing some kind of ersatz marriage ceremony..
    That devalues marriage, making it into an ‘optional lifestyle choice’. It then leads to further destabilisation of a society.
    I believe all people have dignity and worth, and all deserve the protection of the law. That does not mean I should feel bound to promote all kinds of different sexual expressions as being of equal value or on the same level as marriage.
    I think we are falling back into the reasonings of our old friend Antonio Gramsci…

  24. Pete,

    following your logic, the Civil Partnership thingy should be scrapped … and MARRIAGE made available to everyone. Therefore, no discrimination against anyone …

    I don’t agree with that option, and something tells me either do you.