Ban on heterosexual civil partnerships in UK ruled discriminatory

[garbon]

And a reversal

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jun/27/uk-ban-on-heterosexual-civil-partnerships-ruled-discriminatory

Ban on heterosexual civil partnerships in UK ruled discriminatory

A heterosexual couple who were denied the right to enter into a civil partnership have won their claim at the UK's highest court that they have suffered discrimination.

Justices at the supreme court unanimously found in favour of Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan in a decision that will put pressure on the government to change the law.

The pair, from west London, who believe that the institution of marriage is patriarchal and sexist, have fought a prolonged legal campaign to open up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.

At present, heterosexual couples may only marry; same-sex couples can either marry or take up a civil partnership. Keidan and Steinfeld had lost their earlier legal challenges at both the high court and the court of appeal.

In their decision, the five supreme court justices formally declared that the ban preventing opposite-sex couples from obtaining a civil partnership was incompatible with their human rights and amounted to discrimination.

...

[Maladict]

Avoiding the "they take all your money if you break up"  factor is really selling these civil unions to me

That only happens if you're stupid enough not to get a prenup.

edit: didn't realize this was an old thread

[11B4V]

The UK needs to cease hetro bashing and fix such rampant hetrophobia. For shame, for shame.

[Josquius]

Next step lets have civil partnerships be automatic after x years living together.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Next step lets have civil partnerships be automatic after x years living together.

A government log of sexual activity would be needed; otherwise one might end up in a civil partnership with some random flatmate.

[Tamas]

Next step lets have civil partnerships be automatic after x years living together.

A government log of sexual activity would be needed; otherwise one might end up in a civil partnership with some random flatmate.

Yeah sounds like somebody got used to foreign living standards and forgot his homeland's lack of housing.



I am happy for this decision, making the distinction WAS discriminating.

[Malthus]

Next step lets have civil partnerships be automatic after x years living together.

Sort of like common law marriage then.

In Ontario, living together in a "conjugal relationship" for three years (or one year if you have a child together) makes you common law married. In other provinces, different times apply ...

[Malthus]

Next step lets have civil partnerships be automatic after x years living together.

A government log of sexual activity would be needed; otherwise one might end up in a civil partnership with some random flatmate.

Test here is:

In the case of M. V. H. (1999) 2 SCR 3, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), sets out the generally accepted characteristics of a conjugal relationship. They include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple. However, it was recognized that these elements may be present in varying degrees and not all are necessary for the relationship to be found to be conjugal. While it is true that there may not be any consensus as to the societal perception of same-sex couples, there is agreement that same-sex couples share many other "conjugal" characteristics. In order to come within the definition, neither opposite-sex couples nor same-sex couples are required to fit precisely the traditional marital model to demonstrate that the relationship is "conjugal".

All those questions, and no doubt others, may properly be considered as tending to show whether a couple who have lived together for more than two years have done so with the permanent mutual support commitment that, in the relevant sense of the Family Relations legislation, constitutes living together as husband and wife.

[garbon]

Next step lets have civil partnerships be automatic after x years living together.

A government log of sexual activity would be needed; otherwise one might end up in a civil partnership with some random flatmate.

Test here is:

In the case of M. V. H. (1999) 2 SCR 3, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), sets out the generally accepted characteristics of a conjugal relationship. They include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple. However, it was recognized that these elements may be present in varying degrees and not all are necessary for the relationship to be found to be conjugal. While it is true that there may not be any consensus as to the societal perception of same-sex couples, there is agreement that same-sex couples share many other "conjugal" characteristics. In order to come within the definition, neither opposite-sex couples nor same-sex couples are required to fit precisely the traditional marital model to demonstrate that the relationship is "conjugal".

All those questions, and no doubt others, may properly be considered as tending to show whether a couple who have lived together for more than two years have done so with the permanent mutual support commitment that, in the relevant sense of the Family Relations legislation, constitutes living together as husband and wife.

What happens when you have multiple adults participating in those behaviours and cohabitating?

[Malthus]

What happens when you have multiple adults participating in those behaviours and cohabitating?

I honestly don't know. Good question.

One thing is certain - here at least, the system is set up so you can only have one legal "spouse" at a time.

My guess is that if you are cohabiting with multiple people, say having sex and/or sharing economic support with all of them, you aren't in the exclusive-type relationship sufficient to appear as a "spouse" to any one of them (no "couple" in a "permanent mutual support" situation), so no common law marriage exists - but I don't know enough about family law for that to be more than a guess.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I don't approve of "common law" marriages; they are an infringement of liberty. It should be up to the people concerned whether they form a civil union or marriage.

[garbon]

What happens when you have multiple adults participating in those behaviours and cohabitating?

I honestly don't know. Good question.

One thing is certain - here at least, the system is set up so you can only have one legal "spouse" at a time.

My guess is that if you are cohabiting with multiple people, say having sex and/or sharing economic support with all of them, you aren't in the exclusive-type relationship sufficient to appear as a "spouse" to any one of them (no "couple" in a "permanent mutual support" situation), so no common law marriage exists - but I don't know enough about family law for that to be more than a guess.

That would make sense...but then with law.

[Malthus]

I don't approve of "common law" marriages; they are an infringement of liberty. It should be up to the people concerned whether they form a civil union or marriage.

Heh, the context for making the determination is usually people wanting some sort of benefits once the relationship has ended, either on the death of the spouse (looking to get access to pensions and other death benefits) or spousal support ... the issue is to balance people's rights to arrange their affairs as they want, with society's rights not to have to deal with such arrangements rendering someone a pauper (to be taken care of, presumably, by the state rather than by their former spouse or pension plan or whatever).

Say I'm a wealthy professional dude, I want to have all the benefits of a wife, I start living with a woman, have kids with her, and in every respect we live as man and wife; as is well known, in many such arrangements, the financial aspects are a trade off - one partner (most often the woman in hetero couples, but of course not always) takes on more of the child rearing, the other more of the earning ... then we split after a decade, or I suddenly die. If she's a "spouse", she'd get spousal support if we split, and she'd get survivor benefits if I die ... if she's not, she gets nothing.

The common law marriage acts as a sort of halfway house - you get some rights (pension, support) but not others (property equalization). So there is still choice, just not an absolute choice. 

[Valmy]

Good point Malthus

It is a tricky issue. But it was ultimately this issue that made Homosexuals so insistent on some sort of state recognition, wasn't it?

[crazy canuck]

The other thing that gets lost is that Common Law legislation was created at the same time Divorce laws were being reformed to allow women to end their marriages and to provide spousal and child support when they did.  An obvious loophole existed for men who might wish to avoid these new obligations.