Straight couple lose battle to have civil partnership

[Northern Monkey]

heterosexual couple who object to the "patriarchal baggage" of marriage have lost their latest battle for the right to enter into a civil partnership.

Rebecca Steinfeld, 35, and Charles Keidan, 40, want to secure legal recognition of their seven-year relationship through that route - but are prevented because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 says that only same-sex couples are eligible.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/heterosexual-couple-learn-outcome-civil-partnership-battle-court/amp/

[Livia]

Discrimination is always ugly, no matter in which direction it points.

[Greg!]

Why the hell would you want to get a civil partnership (which is basically a second class marriage for gays introduced before same sex marriage was legalised) when you could just get married? This couple are clearly just attention seekers

[Northern Monkey]

Many people don't believe in the institution of marriage but want to show their life long commitment.
All options should be available to everyone if we want equality.

[DouglasS]

Why the hell would you want to get a civil partnership (which is basically a second class marriage for gays introduced before same sex marriage was legalised) when you could just get married? This couple are clearly just attention seekers
Marriage is generally seen as a religious unity, they may want to show their unity in another way...

[Cherie]

Many people don't believe in the institution of marriage but want to show their life long commitment.
All options should be available to everyone if we want equality.

Yep

[Rogan Josh]

Why the hell would you want to get a civil partnership (which is basically a second class marriage for gays introduced before same sex marriage was legalised) when you could just get married? This couple are clearly just attention seekers

They should at least have the right to a civil partnership , if they want it, otherwise it looks as though they are being discriminated against. Why not? They're not hurting anyone.

[Greg!]

Marriage is generally seen as a religious unity, they may want to show their unity in another way...

There's loads of marriages that are humanist or non-religious. I'm not saying I disagree with the couple's point but the fact they spent thousands on legal feels suggests they just want attention and sympathy

[Brillopad]

There's loads of marriages that are humanist or non-religious. I'm not saying I disagree with the couple's point but the fact they spent thousands on legal feels suggests they just want attention and sympathy

Everyone should have the right without having to explain themselves to others. Their money is their own to do what they want with.

No doubt there have been many similar attention seeking allegations made towards gays for wanting to get legally married.

[Northern Monkey]

There's loads of marriages that are humanist or non-religious. I'm not saying I disagree with the couple's point but the fact they spent thousands on legal feels suggests they just want attention and sympathy

Would you spend thousands just for attention?

It suggests to me that they're fighting for something they believe in.

[Shaun]

It makes no sense to deny this of heterosexual couples and this whole obstruction is really just damaging the progress and attention needed for those in the minority

The "why would they want or need it" argument can also be made of gay or bisexual couples wanting a Christian marriage. Ask them personally. But don't deny them outright.

[Beso]

Why the hell would you want to get a civil partnership (which is basically a second class marriage for gays introduced before same sex marriage was legalised) when you could just get married? This couple are clearly just attention seekers


:joker:attention seekers and not gay.:joker:

[Jamie89]

Marriage is generally seen as a religious unity, they may want to show their unity in another way...

Marriage isn't a religious thing though, it's civil, religion doesn't have to play any part in it if they don't want it to, their reason is because of 'patriarchal baggage' which suggests they'd prefer a Civil Partnership because it's newer (unless I've totally misunderstood the meaning of that? seems a bit vague).

The whole point in Civil Partnerships was to be able to afford similar rights to gay couples that straight couples already get when marrying, they wouldn't exist to begin with if it wasn't for marriage being exclusionary of gay people, so now that isn't the case I don't see why they don't just abolish them. If they're going to keep them then sure open them up to everyone but I just really don't see what the point is in having them at all anymore. (Or keep Civil Partnerships and abolish marriage :spin: )

[VanessaFeltz.]

Many people don't believe in the institution of marriage but want to show their life long commitment.
All options should be available to everyone if we want equality.

I agree

[Withano]

They domt sound that committed to each other.

I had no idea civil partnerships still existed

They should be allowed it, I just dont understand why they would want it.. it always seemed like a 'marriage 0.5' to me... and also, a civil partnership to me now, almost seems like a thing of the past..

[Jack_]

I've supported their campaign for years, was very disappointed when I received the email of the verdict last week. The judge basically admitted they were right but that the government deserved more time though, so I hope they manage to get to the Supreme Court because I think (and hope) they will win.

Marriage is a patriarchal institution rooted in religion and isn't for everyone, I see absolutely no reason why civil partnerships shouldn't be opened up to heterosexual couples. It should've been a clause in the Equal Marriage bill.

[Tom4784]

Marriage is generally seen as a religious unity, they may want to show their unity in another way...

Then they could get married in a non-religious ceremony. A civil partnership is basically marriage some of the legal benefits of marriage. I don't really understand why they'd want what essentially a lesser form of marriage.

If they want it then I say let them have it but it's senseless and it reminds me of children that only wants a certain toy because another kid has it and they don't, they don't need it, their toys are better but they want it just because.

[Vicky.]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44627990

Supreme court overruled this

[Kazanne]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44627990

Supreme court overruled this


Yes ,sure I heard they had won ,good for them.

[Brillopad]

heterosexual couple who object to the "patriarchal baggage" of marriage have lost their latest battle for the right to enter into a civil partnership.

Rebecca Steinfeld, 35, and Charles Keidan, 40, want to secure legal recognition of their seven-year relationship through that route - but are prevented because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 says that only same-sex couples are eligible.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/heterosexual-couple-learn-outcome-civil-partnership-battle-court/amp/

Positve discrimination for certain groups is DISCRIMINTION! If it is morally acceptable for gays then it is morally acceptable for straights. It isn’t rocket science. Disbloodygraceful!!!

[smudgie]

Fair enough if you want to be half in and half out.:shrug:
I suppose it has its benefits to those that can’t or don’t want to marry for any reason.

[kirklancaster]

Many people don't believe in the institution of marriage but want to show their life long commitment.
All options should be available to everyone if we want equality.

:laugh: Yeah, but some think that equality does not apply to others once they have gained it themselves.

With apologies to Orwell:

“All animals are equal, but some newly equal animals are more DESERVINGLY equal than others.”

[kirklancaster]

Then they could get married in a non-religious ceremony. A civil partnership is basically marriage some of the legal benefits of marriage. I don't really understand why they'd want what essentially a lesser form of marriage.

If they want it then I say let them have it but it's senseless and it reminds me of children that only wants a certain toy because another kid has it and they don't, they don't need it, their toys are better but they want it just because.

Why did LGBTDDFTHNBCCE (or some other combination of initials which I have long-since lost track of) want the right to be legally married?

[Twosugars]

:laugh: Yeah, but some think that equality does not apply to others once they have gained it themselves.

With apologies to Orwell:

“All animals are equal, but some newly equal animals are more DESERVINGLY equal than others.”

Do you honestly believe gays want to have privileged position? I don't.
C'mon Kirk, you can do better than this.
It's all to do with government's inertia. Once they introduced gay marriage they should have either abolished civil partnerships or opened them to straights. Once equality is reached it should be maintained, not distorted because the government can't be arsed to clarify its position.
Personally, I'd keep them alongside marriage, for everybody who is not keen on full marriage (be it civil or religious). So this straight couple (and others) should not be denied.

[Niamh.]

I can see why there was some confusion as the way I understood it was that civil partnerships were only invented as an option for gay couples who weren't allowed get married really. I assumed that civil partnerships would be phased out though now gay people can get married

[Tom4784]

Why did LGBTDDFTHNBCCE (or some other combination of initials which I have long-since lost track of) want the right to be legally married?

Marriage isn't just a certificate, it offers benefits that unmarried people do not have. The LGBT fought for the right to marry so they could have access to those benefits and rights that came with marriage that they didn't have before. I'm all for this couple getting a civil partnership if they want but it stinks of that childlike attitude of wanting something you basically already have because someone else has it.

[GoldHeart]

Marriage is generally seen as a religious unity, they may want to show their unity in another way...

This story is daft, if they want some kind of unity in a "non religious" way then they could go to register office and be done in 5 minutes :sleep: .

[Niamh.]

This story is daft, if they want some kind of unity in a "non religious" way then they could go to register office and be done in 5 minutes :sleep:

Exactly, I mean I doubt anyone is bothered either way but it does seem like a childish point proving exercise

[Tom4784]

I don't understand why Civil partnerships are still a thing though, they were a stepping stone to equal marriage and they've served their purpose. They should be phased out at this point.

[GoldHeart]

Exactly, I mean I doubt anyone is bothered either way but it does seem like a childish point proving exercise

If all they want is some kind of marriage but not a full blown wedding ,then they could do it easily without much fuss .

I don't understand why a straight couple wants "civil partnership" :conf: :facepalm: . There's all kinds of short quick ceremonies. People even get married by "Elvis" in Vegas ! Lol .

[Alf]

I always thought marriage was just an excuse to have a party, and to recieve gifts to kit out your kitchen. I must have been wrong!

[arista]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44627990

Supreme court overruled this


Yes Title needs changing, please

[GoldHeart]

I always thought marriage was just an excuse to have a party, and to recieve gifts to kit out your kitchen. I must have been wrong!

Well that's the question ,do they want a marriage or just a wedding / party.
I get the impression they're wanting a fuss over nothing? . As I've said already they could just pop into the registry office with a few family & friends and be done in 5 mins and have a party afterwards.

Makes no sense why they want a special "civil partnership" :notimpressed: :conf:

[bots]

Well that's the question ,do they want a marriage or just a wedding / party.
I get the impression they're wanting a fuss over nothing? . As I've said already they could just pop into the registry office with a few family & friends and be done in 5 mins and have a party afterwards.

Makes no sense why they want a special "civil partnership" :notimpressed: :conf:

i thought they were more concerned that the woman is historically seen as subservient to the man in traditional marriage whereas a "partnership" is seen as something entirely different

[Niamh.]

i thought they were more concerned that the woman is historically seen as subservient to the man in traditional marriage whereas a "partnership" is seen as something entirely different

Not in a civil ceremony, all that love honour and obey ****e is a mroe religious thing I think

[bots]

Not in a civil ceremony, all that love honour and obey ****e is a mroe religious thing I think

but i think it's the connotations that could be associated with marriage ... i mean to most sensible people in this day and age it doesn't matter a jot, but "partnership" doesn't have that connotation

[Niamh.]

but i think it's the connotations that could be associated with marriage ... i mean to most sensible people in this day and age it doesn't matter a jot, but "partnership" doesn't have that connotation

hhhmmm I don't know, I reckon they were still trying to prove some sort of a point tbh, marriage is a partnership, those are the connotations I'd associate with marriage :shrug: But whatever, I don't think anyone is actually bothered whether they want a civil partnership or not, it's their motives which seem a bit odd to me and unbelievable. I mean if you want to talk about connotations, the first thing I think of when I hear civil partnership is "less than marriage but to keep gay people happy" and is the reason gay people fought to be able to marry because of those connotations

[Brillopad]

Then they could get married in a non-religious ceremony. A civil partnership is basically marriage some of the legal benefits of marriage. I don't really understand why they'd want what essentially a lesser form of marriage.

If they want it then I say let them have it but it's senseless and it reminds me of children that only wants a certain toy because another kid has it and they don't, they don't need it, their toys are better but they want it just because.

Then why do gay couples choose marriage over civil partnerships when the two are very similar other than being childish and trying to prove a point? They don’t need it they want it because straight couples have it. Same difference!

[Brillopad]

Marriage isn't just a certificate, it offers benefits that unmarried people do not have. The LGBT fought for the right to marry so they could have access to those benefits and rights that came with marriage that they didn't have before. I'm all for this couple getting a civil partnership if they want but it stinks of that childlike attitude of wanting something you basically already have because someone else has it.

The ‘benefits’ were to protect women with children who couldn’t work and make the necessary contributions to a pension. Not so much an issue for gay couples.

[Tom4784]

Then why do gay couples choose marriage over civil partnerships when the two are very similar other than being childish and trying to prove a point? They don’t need it they want it because straight couples have it. Same difference!

Except it isn't. Notice I said SOME of the legal benefits, not all. I also said in a later post that Civil partnerships were a stepping stone to equal marriage and thus are obsolete now. If you're calling gay people childish for wanting equal rights then that says it all, really.

The ‘benefits’ were to protect women with children who couldn’t work and make the necessary contributions to a pension. Not so much an issue for gay couples.

Bit ignorant to think that this isn't a problem for gay people. Gay people have families too, there are stay at home gay parents that take care of the family as well, do you oppose them getting the same rights as their straight counterparts?

[Niamh.]

Then why do gay couples choose marriage over civil partnerships when the two are very similar other than being childish and trying to prove a point? They don’t need it they want it because straight couples have it. Same difference!

Equality Brillo, same reason women fight for the same rights as men........

The ‘benefits’ were to protect women with children who couldn’t work and make the necessary contributions to a pension. Not so much an issue for gay couples.

Which in this day and age is an out dated concept and pretty sexist

[Brillopad]

Equality Brillo, same reason women fight for the same rights as men........



Which in this day and age is an out dated concept and pretty sexist

If you can confidently say that anywhere near as many gay couples have children as straight couples I would strongly disagree - so not sexist in my opinion.

Besides I was talking of why the institution of marriage was created - ,mainly for the pritection of women and children. Theses days most people work and pay their own contributions, children or not.

[Tom4784]

If you can confidently say that anywhere near as many gay couples have children as straight couples I would strongly disagree - so not sexist in my opinion.

Besides I was talking of why the institution of marriage was created - ,mainly for the pritection of women and children. Theses days most people work and pay their own contributions, children or not.

The number doesn't matter, families with gay parents (or just gay couples in general) deserve the same rights as families with straight parents or straight couples.

That whole statement is quite bizarre, people aren't entitled to same rights as other people are if there isn't enough of them? What a backwards way of looking at things.

[Withano]

I was always confused by straight couples wanting a civil partnership, because it always seemed like an insult really but somebody on here once explained why they personally wanted one

There's a similar thread about LGTB+ rights but it seems mostly to be concentrated upon the right to donate blood for LGTB+.

I and many others are trying to campaign for the right for heterosexual partners to be permitted a civil partnership as an alternative to marriage, with the legal rights that come along with it. Should it not be our right to choose the terms of our relationships and have equal protection in the eyes of the law? Because right now we don't. I don't believe even that it's any part of any political agenda, and it should be.

If my partner were to die now, without having made a will, I would be completely incumbent upon his family 's grace as to whether or not I could continue living in our rented property, let alone whether I could afford it alone. I am also certain they wouldn't give a sh**. There are no "common law wife" rules.

Why should I not have the same protection in law as a same-sex couple?

Oh weird, cant see any reason to only allow it for cetain types of couples.

Can I ask why you would prefer this option to a marriage or is that too personal?

Haha, it's not that personal :) My partner is considerably younger than me, and he's Italian. His family have been against the relationship for the entire 11 years we've been together. I've never been invited to a single family event. His mother dreams of him marrying a younger, fully acceptable bride in a huge Catholic orgy of bull**** with everyone in the many extended families there, and tries to pretend I don't exist. I know we'll always be together, and I'd just like the law to say that we can be together and have rights in case one of us pops it. No ceremony, no fuss. Plus for me a wedding has religious connotations and I'm a heathen :)

TBH I could counter that question with, if civil partnerships were already available to same sex couples, why the huge campaign for marriage?

It IS weird, but sadly true...non same sex can't have one.

And PS - I actually wrote my thesis in Family Law about this exact same topic, 16 years ago...:(

I’m glad the couple in the story got their civil partnership, and I hope others will too in the future.

[Niamh.]

If you can confidently say that anywhere near as many gay couples have children as straight couples I would strongly disagree - so not sexist in my opinion.

Besides I was talking of why the institution of marriage was created - ,mainly for the pritection of women and children. Theses days most people work and pay their own contributions, children or not.The reason I said it was sexist was nothing to do with gay couples though

[Brillopad]

The number doesn't matter, families with gay parents (or just gay couples in general) deserve the same rights as families with straight parents or straight couples.

That whole statement is quite bizarre, people aren't entitled to same rights as other people are if there isn't enough of them? What a backwards way of looking at things.

Why would people not planning to have children want ‘benefits’ - it all suggests some gay couples are just trying to prove a point and have what straights have - which takes me back to your original comments criticising the straight couple wanting a civil ceremony for being childish and trying to prove a point. They probably are, but if you don’t criticise the gay couples for doing the same it’s double standards and total nonsense.

[Tom4784]

Why would people not planning to have children want ‘benefits’ - it all suggests some gay couples are just trying to prove a point and have what straights have - which takes me back to your original comments criticising the straight couple wanting a civil ceremony for being childish and trying to prove a point. They probably are, but if you don’t criticise the gay couples for doing the same it’s double standards and total nonsense.

Why do you keep assuming gay couples don't have kids? A very outdated view on things.

Straight couples that don't have kids also get benefits from marriage. Why are you oso opposed to gay people getting the same?

You are comparing apples and oranges to such an extent it's laughable. A civil partnership is not the same as marriage. This straight couple wanting a partnership is not the same as gay people wanting equal marriage, not by a long shot. Civil partnerships weren't meant to be anything other than a stepping stone for gay people to have their own lite equivalent of marriage while the government worked on equal marriage. Civil partnerships should have been abolished as soon as equal marriage was introduced as it's obsolete now.

A straight couple demanding an obselete imitation of marriage is not the same as gay people fighting for the same bonuses and rights that straight people have always enjoyed. To compare the two shows how little you understand of the situation or of gay rights.