https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/heterosexual-couples-should-not-be-allowed-civil-partnerships-court-rules
QuoteRebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, a couple who say traditional marriage is patriarchal, lose court of appeal case
Heterosexual couples should not be allowed to enter into civil partnerships with one another, the court of appeal has ruled.
But one appeal court judge said the law needed to be changed immediately, while two other judges said the government could have longer to review the law.
The decision follows a three-year legal campaign by two Londoners, Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, who reject traditional marriage on the grounds that it is a "sexist" and "patriarchal" institution.
Denying them the right to enter into a civil partnership – a choice open to same-sex couples – was discriminatory, they had argued.
Keidan and Steinfeld lost by a majority of two to one in the appeal court judgment.
All three judges, Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Beatson, agreed that the discrimination against heterosexual couples could not last indefinitely.
Only Arden said the government needed to change the law immediately. The other two judges effectively said ministers can have longer to review the situation.
Louise Whitfield, from the law firm Deighton Peirce Glynn who represented the couple, said: "This is very frustrating. It was such a narrow win for the government. They all agreed that the government was living on borrowed time and that there had been a potential violation of their rights.
"Lady Justice Arden said that the government had run out of time already. The other two judges, however, allowed the government a bit more time to consider the issue."
The Isle of Man is the only part of the British Isles that currently offers heterosexual couples the opportunity to enter into civil partnerships.
Civil Unions are open to both hetero and homosexual couples in Spain, and always been IIRC. They don't accrue the same rights/obligations as regular marriages, although they are broadly similar.
Same over here. Civil Union is possible over here, I'm currently in one with my gf.
Outside of some details it's the same as marriage.
Biggest difference is that you have to name your partner in a testament otherwise they won't inherit.
They pay the same taxes on the inheritance as if you would've been married.
I also had to offically aknowledge my daughter to the authorities as mine, if I would've been married this would(ve been automatically.
They should allow them to marry as lesbians.
Wow.
I didn't know that was a thing.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 21, 2017, 07:58:40 AM
Wow.
I didn't know that was a thing.
UK authorized civil partnerships for gay couples when marriage wasn't an option for gays. When gays got gay marriage in UK, they never changed rules on civil partnerships, so currently gays have more 'options' than straight people.
So very British.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 21, 2017, 08:56:37 AM
So very British.
I think some states that had granted gays civil unions had (have?) the same situation in US.
Another reason why there's no reason for the government to be able to decide who can get married/civil unioned/going to IHOP for lunch.Was this all Henry VIII fault?
The government of the time took some shortcuts and we ended up in a silly place :)
I think it would have been better to set up civil unions for all and put the religious marriages outside the state's purview. But we still have an established church and the Queen is governor of that, so the constitutional issues and legislation would have been more complicated.
Even though they were aimed at homosexual couples, civil unions were surprisingly successful among heterosexuals - since it's a more flexible and "a la carte" legal relationship than an actual marriage -, and they remain pretty popular in a post-gay marriage reality. 15% of Spanish legalized relationships are civil unions, while 85% are marriages.
How is a civil union different from just living with someone? What rights and obligations does it entail?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2017, 01:00:18 PM
How is a civil union different from just living with someone? What rights and obligations does it entail?
In Spain for example it allows for a pension if one of the partners dies, job leaves if your partner is sick or gave birth, health care as if you were married, and some other things. It doesn't incorporate other economic rights and obligations marriages enjoy (i.e. alimony, inheritance privileges, tax advantages...), although some of those can be incorporated into the partnership if both partners agree to it.
It's kinda an intermediate state between "just living with someone" and being married.
Avoiding the "they take all your money if you break up" factor is really selling these civil unions to me :hmm:
Anyway. The couple in question. They're funny looking.
In Finland, we are (finally) getting gender-neutral marriage laws on the 1st of March. After that, no new civil unions will be possible, though existing ones will remain in force. That said, there is also the state of "living together with your partner" type of arrangement which is semi-recognized by the authorities.
And a reversal
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jun/27/uk-ban-on-heterosexual-civil-partnerships-ruled-discriminatory
QuoteBan 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.
...
Quote from: Tyr on February 22, 2017, 02:47:09 AM
Avoiding the "they take all your money if you break up" factor is really selling these civil unions to me :hmm:
That only happens if you're stupid enough not to get a prenup.
edit: didn't realize this was an old thread
The UK needs to cease hetro bashing and fix such rampant hetrophobia. For shame, for shame.
Next step lets have civil partnerships be automatic after x years living together.
Quote from: Tyr on June 28, 2018, 03:50:12 AM
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 28, 2018, 04:38:33 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 28, 2018, 03:50:12 AM
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.
:lol: 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.
Quote from: Tyr on June 28, 2018, 03:50:12 AM
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 ...
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 28, 2018, 04:38:33 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 28, 2018, 03:50:12 AM
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:
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 28, 2018, 07:43:20 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 28, 2018, 04:38:33 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 28, 2018, 03:50:12 AM
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:
QuoteIn 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?
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2018, 08:14:17 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 28, 2018, 08:28:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2018, 08:14:17 AM
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. :D :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 28, 2018, 09:25:41 AM
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.
Good point Malthus :hmm:
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?
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2018, 10:45:21 AM
Good point Malthus :hmm:
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?
I don't think it was mainly that - it was more, I think, the symbolic acceptance that their relationships, identical to those of heterosexual people, be recognized as legally equal.
In fact ... a lot of gays I know have mixed feelings about being treated legally the same as heterosexuals - that is, the ones who are relatively wealthy. Gay marriage is an obvious rallying-cry, being excluded from (say) pension benefits an obvious injustice, but they feel somewhat more ambivalent about suddenly being subject to spousal support obligations or family property equalization. ;)
Also, some have a psychic investment, as it were, in being different from and an alternative to heterosexual society, often seen as dull and conformist. They aren't totally eager to become the gay Cleavers, married with a mortgage kind of people. Though they pretty well universally believe gays should have the right to, if they want!
Quote from: Malthus on June 28, 2018, 10:29:12 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 28, 2018, 09:25:41 AM
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.
Yes, there are many hard cases which is why the state gets involved. But my preferred outcome is for the woman to tell the wealthy professional dude to either commit or get lost :P
We have a related problem here in the UK with Muslim marriages. An astounding 61% are not married in the eyes of the state https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/20/women-uk-islamic-wedding-legal-rights-civil-ceremony-marriage .
Quote from: Malthus on June 28, 2018, 11:35:53 AM
Also, some have a psychic investment, as it were, in being different from and an alternative to heterosexual society, often seen as dull and conformist. They aren't totally eager to become the gay Cleavers, married with a mortgage kind of people. Though they pretty well universally believe gays should have the right to, if they want!
Oh yes heterosexual people are basically 1950s sitcoms. Anyway this thread shows that plenty of heterosexual people are self-satisfied free spirits as well :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 28, 2018, 11:35:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2018, 10:45:21 AM
Good point Malthus :hmm:
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?
I don't think it was mainly that - it was more, I think, the symbolic acceptance that their relationships, identical to those of heterosexual people, be recognized as legally equal.
In fact ... a lot of gays I know have mixed feelings about being treated legally the same as heterosexuals - that is, the ones who are relatively wealthy. Gay marriage is an obvious rallying-cry, being excluded from (say) pension benefits an obvious injustice, but they feel somewhat more ambivalent about suddenly being subject to spousal support obligations or family property equalization. ;)
Also, some have a psychic investment, as it were, in being different from and an alternative to heterosexual society, often seen as dull and conformist. They aren't totally eager to become the gay Cleavers, married with a mortgage kind of people. Though they pretty well universally believe gays should have the right to, if they want!
Cakeism :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 28, 2018, 11:35:53 AM
Also, some have a psychic investment, as it were, in being different from and an alternative to heterosexual society, often seen as dull and conformist. They aren't totally eager to become the gay Cleavers, married with a mortgage kind of people. Though they pretty well universally believe gays should have the right to, if they want!
I don't see what's paradoxical about that. Same thing about women's fight for equality. Doesn't mean that there aren't some women who want to stay and be homemakers, it is about actually having a choice in the matter.
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2018, 12:19:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 28, 2018, 11:35:53 AM
Also, some have a psychic investment, as it were, in being different from and an alternative to heterosexual society, often seen as dull and conformist. They aren't totally eager to become the gay Cleavers, married with a mortgage kind of people. Though they pretty well universally believe gays should have the right to, if they want!
I don't see what's paradoxical about that. Same thing about women's fight for equality. Doesn't mean that there aren't some women who want to stay and be homemakers, it is about actually having a choice in the matter.
Nothing at all paradoxical about it.
Point is that the fight was always more about the legal recognition of equality, than it was about anxiety to receive the financial benefits of the status (such as spousal support) - about which many, in fact, have mixed feelings.
Gay marriage is above all about society at large including gays within its ambit, legally recognizing their relationships as equally "valid" -- even if not a single gay couple decides to actually get married.
The reverse of the coin is that gay couples here are now subject to common law status, whether they choose it or not.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 28, 2018, 04:38:33 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 28, 2018, 03:50:12 AM
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.
Pretty sure it does work that way in Sweden actually.
And why not?
If you're living with someone 10 years then they're as good as family even if you're not intimate.