Civil Partnership Bill

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:23

Well there used to be a belief that if you had lived with somone for a year, that made you their common law spouse but apparently it doesn't give you any legal right over property, offspring etc. However, there is apparently an old Scottish law whereby if you were seen as someone's spouse "by habit and repute" then you did have some rights. I think it's a long time since it was invoked. Maybe we should do an experiment. Any legal folk out there who can enlighten us?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:24

Hmm...home now, and slightly scared by the storm I've aroused!

Married partners no longer have tax breaks, that is correct, and haven't for some years. Tax credits are not dependent on married status.

Inheritance tax and pension rights are some of the most significant benefits that married people get and same-sex partners will get, after some fighting, actually, in the new bill. With regards to pension rights, most pensions allow you to nominate your partner as someone to receieve a survivor pension whe you die. At present, most companies, whilst this is voluntary, will uphold this for non-married straight couples. Most will not honour this for same-sex couples. The worst offenders are the lucrative public pensions - councils, government etc.

Parenting rights:- whilst unmarried fathers I think still do not have parental rights, although this is changing, most situations where this matter arises will ignore that lack of parental responsibility. I don't know any straight parents who have not been allowed to consent to their children's vaccinations because they were unmarried, despite the health visitor telling me it is so. I however have been denied that. I had at that time the same rights as an unmarried father - i.e. none - but nobody tends to question the father, whether married or not. When you're both the same sex, it's kind of obvious. Also, unmarried fathers can obtain parental responsibility by being given a piece of paper by the mother which says she agrees with it and and lets him have it. Same sex couples cannot do this. Currently, as far as I am aware, there has only been one case in Scotland where same-sex parents have been granted parental responsibility - seven years later than it happened in England.

Access for separated parents is a completely separate issue, one I am happy to rant about in another thread!

As to what I want from this bill, not read any of the detail of the bill that's actually gone through yet. But...I want to know that if anything should happen to my partner, our children and I will not be left homeless simply because we're gay. I want to know that the pension she pays the same amount of money to as her straight colleagues will go to me just as theirs goes to their partners. I want to know that both our children will be treated equally in law, and not discriminated against because of someone's prejudiced perception of their parents' relationship. And I want to be recognised as her next-of-kin, able to make the important decisions she wants to be made by me and not her parents, just as anyone else can expect their life partner to make those decisions in a crisis.

Other than that, I want us to be able to live our lives in peace, like the normal, ordinary people we are, not ruled by what people perceive our sexuality to be.

Guess that's me well and truly out of that closet now. But then I was never too keen on staying locked in dark cupboards!
Bellybabe

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:25

*steps gingerly back into the arena*

Didn't mean to offend all you guys out there living over the broom

Let's start by saying I don't think marriage necessarily makes your relationship more valid or more meaningful. It does, however, give certain legal protection (we've had some of those issues mentioned already). If the central issue a couple have for not wanting to get married is that they don't want to formally declare it in a registry office and sign a bit of paper then I've no problems with that at all (some of my best friends and all that

) . It's just that surely for this bill you still have to be witnessed signing a bit of paper.
It seems to me that it's the term "married" that heterosexual co-habiting couples seem to object to otherwise you wouldn't be wanting the right to sign a similar legal contract or am I wrong?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:30

dccairns wrote: However, there is apparently an old Scottish law whereby if you were seen as someone's spouse "by habit and repute" then you did have some rights. I think it's a long time since it was invoked. Maybe we should do an experiment. Any legal folk out there who can enlighten us?

It's true that this did used to be the case but is no longer considered a legal thing. In fact I remember being told the law that applied, but also being told it didn't really - ?! Anyway, it is no longer in use, if it ever really was (which I think it was because I'm sure I've read case histories using it, but my memory may be playing tricks on me).

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:45

I just realised that this is the first proper grown-up discussion we have had in some time. You see, we can do it when we try.

It must be time for a Porty post. "Who was the first person you shagged?"

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:47

Bob wrote:I just realised that this is the first proper grown-up discussion we have had in some time.

I'm so sorry - I normally try and avoid those - I just was over excited!

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:49

Robert : Shocked and Stunned at your latest posting

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:52

How did you get that one past the profanity filter?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:53

Manual over-ride? Apologies Gemini, I'm at that difficult age for men - between 13 and death.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:56

Quote Bellybabe:

Access for separated parents is a completely separate issue, one I am happy to rant about in another thread!

I would be interested in what you have to say regarding this Topic Bellybabe.

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:57

Gemini wrote:Quote Bellybabe:

Access for separated parents is a completely separate issue, one I am happy to rant about in another thread!

I would be interested in what you have to say regarding this Topic Bellybabe.

Brace yourselves folks - here we go again!

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 18 Nov 2004, 22:59

Actually Bob, I found it rather amusing.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 18 Nov 2004, 23:05

It's true that this did used to be the case but is no longer considered a legal thing. In fact I remember being told the law that applied, but also being told it didn't really - ?! Anyway, it is no longer in use, if it ever really was (which I think it was because I'm sure I've read case histories using it, but my memory may be playing tricks on me).
_________________

You are quite right Bellybabe. movable estate is the only right a cohabitee can claim - I think?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 18 Nov 2004, 23:44

Bob wrote: "Who was the first person you shagged?"

Well! Not that I'm overly shy or anything but how's about we save this one for the Xmas lunch?

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 19 Nov 2004, 00:17

In answer to Marya's question, yes, I object to having to register my relationship with anyone. I've been with the same person for years and believe we should have the same rights as married people, as I believe gay people should.

PS Do you think we should update "living over the broom" or "over t'brush", as they say in Yorkshire, to "living over the Dyson"?

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 19 Nov 2004, 11:35

dccairns wrote:In answer to Marya's question, yes, I object to having to register my relationship with anyone. I've been with the same person for years and believe we should have the same rights as married people, as I believe gay people should.

I think that's a view that a lot of people share entirely,

BUT

if you want your 'rights' and 'obligations' to be regulated, policed and enforced in times of stormy weather then surely it makes sense that the relationship is in some way 'registered' or recognised simply so that the enforcers know what and who they are dealing with? There is no obligation to enter into the deal at all, and no lack of respect if you do not?

As a most trivial example, I get to buy Scotland tickets earlier than most for home games, and also for away games because I am registered with the SFA (for my sins). If I'm not registered I don't get the same benefits?

And as Bob noted earlier, the form of registration is, or can be very discrete? I'm not trying to knock anyones choices or decisions but I'm recognising the impossibility of legislating and administering rights and obligations for couples that exist (as far as the state is concerned) simply because they say they do?

Post by **wangi** » 19 Nov 2004, 11:51

What I just "don't get" is the government's fascination with adding bundles of new legislation when all that's required is removing the bar on same-sex marriages...

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Nov 2004, 11:56

Gemini wrote:Actually Bob, I found it rather amusing.

Who was the last person you shagged?

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 19 Nov 2004, 12:19

I've no idea - they said they were a spy.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Nov 2004, 12:21

mr magnolia wrote:And as Bob noted earlier, the form of registration is, or can be very discrete? I'm not trying to knock anyones choices or decisions but I'm recognising the impossibility of legislating and administering rights and obligations for couples that exist (as far as the state is concerned) simply because they say they do?

Agreed, its impossible to regulate on the basis of someone's word alone. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone said they, dont need road tax as they dont have a car, a registered car that is.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 19 Nov 2004, 12:40

Porty wrote:
Agreed, its impossible to regulate on the basis of someone's word alone. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone said they, dont need road tax as they dont have a car, a registered car that is.

er, your point is?, caller...

or are you getting confused with the registration and legislation for Financial Advisers?

ras · Post by **ras** » 19 Nov 2004, 13:12

I'm not convinced that it would be that difficult to regulate -

signing a lease, signing for a mortgage, joint account, parents/gaurdians -

are these not some instances where both parties 'sign up' and could be then be 'recognised' as in a co-habiting relationship?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Nov 2004, 13:26

Ras, No, as parties other than co-habiting can do all of those things.

Mr M, I was rather clumsily trying to illustrate the difficulty in regulating non registered stuff. I failed.

ras · Post by **ras** » 19 Nov 2004, 13:57

yes Porty, but all I am suggesting is that if there is a requirement to have a signature on a piece of paper as 'proof of co-habiting' to allow the mechanism to kick into place, documents such as I suggested may be a way forward.

This would be particularly relevant for un-married fathers who, as far as I am aware, have next to no rights over their kids - of particular interest as an acquaintance of mine has been left - not holding the baby - following his ex-partner's affair.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 19 Nov 2004, 14:05

OK I know why people don't want to get married, but please, someone (Ali? dccairns?anyone?) explain to me why you want the right to sign a legal contract stating that you are in a) a Civil Partnership ,but don't want to sign a legal contract to say you are b) registering a marriage;
especially as (b) offers greater rights than (a)?

Perplexed of Portobello

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Nov 2004, 14:14

Surely the problem comes from giving married couples rights to which they are not entitled?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 19 Nov 2004, 14:25

You mean like an acre of Moon ?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Nov 2004, 14:29

Bob wrote:I just realised that this is the first proper grown-up discussion we have had in some time.

It may be proper but its also completely pointless, don't be so smug.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 19 Nov 2004, 15:35

In answer to Marya, I don't want to sign a form to say I'm in a civil partnership. I don't feel the need to make my relationship "official" in any way. But I recognise that the civil partnership bill is a major step forward for rights for gay couples. I actually don't think it should be necessary at all.

In answer to earlier questions about proving you are cohabiting, surely it should be enough to show you have both been living at the same address for a year. And I know you could get into the realms of flatmates registering but then you have married couples who live in separate bedrooms. Very difficult to recognise and legislate for all kinds of lving arrangements. What about communes? Anyone want to start one?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Nov 2004, 16:23

dccairns wrote: What about communes? Anyone want to start one?

Lets get married and talk about it.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 19 Nov 2004, 16:30

I remember back in the days of yore ,when supplementary benefit and it's like existed, a student friend being denied housing benefit because she was deemed to be cohabiting with a male flatmate . All the proof the visiting official needed was that her room contained a double bed and she didn't have a separate cupboard for her groceries

There you have it, then, a simple foolproof set of criteria for establishing
the facts......

My friend needless to say was not in a "relationship" with the flatmate other than owing him her share of the rent money

ras · Post by **ras** » 19 Nov 2004, 17:09

just back from a bit of a liquid lunch

there would appear to be a workable solution

give everyone exactly the same rights/benefits/recognition as everyone else and anyone who doesn't want those rights can opt out by signing a piece of paper

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Nov 2004, 17:33

ras wrote:
give everyone exactly the same rights/benefits/recognition as everyone else and anyone who doesn't want those rights can opt out by signing a piece of paper

That's what i was trying to say.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 19 Nov 2004, 17:41

ras wrote:just back from a bit of a liquid lunch

there would appear to be a workable solution

give everyone exactly the same rights/benefits/recognition as everyone else and anyone who doesn't want those rights can opt out by signing a piece of paper

I want that liquid!

ras wrote:anyone who doesn't want those rights can opt out by signing a piece of paper

at birth? ...or before?...

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 19 Nov 2004, 18:33

Is Porty's offer "let's get married..." the first proposal on this forum? And the first invitation to bigamy?!![/quote]