Heterosexual couple refused civil partnership

daveza

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
49,867
Reaction score
21,624
Location
Durbanville, Cape Town
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/24/heterosexual-couple-refused-civil-partnership

A couple who want to become the first heterosexuals in Britain to have a civil partnership said they would begin a legal challenge after a council refused their request today .

Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, both 25, want the same legal rights as any husband and wife, but said they did not want to be seen to be "colluding with the segregation that exists in matrimonial law between gay civil partnerships and straight civil marriage".

The couple applied for a civil partnership at Islington register office, in north London, but were refused because UK law bans opposite-sex civil partnerships.

Freeman and Doyle, who are supported by the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, plan to seek legal advice.

"If necessary, we are ready to take our appeal all the way to the European court of human rights," said Freeman, a civil servant.

In a joint statement, the pair said they were "saddened and disappointed" that they had been refused because of their sexuality.

"In a democratic state, all institutions should be open to all people," the statement added.

An Islington council spokesman said the law "dictates that a civil partnership is only for couples of the same sex".

He added: "The council must follow the law, of course, and so we have not been able to accept Mr Freeman and Ms Doyle's application for a civil partnership."
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised that this hasn't been challenged before, and not only in the UK.

Perhaps the first anti-hetero law and which clearly discriminates against non-gay couples.

If gay couples can enjoy the benefits of a civil union surely straight couples are entitled to the same benefits without becoming legally married ?
 
Wiki -


civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in many developed countries in order to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to opposite-sex civil marriage.

In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, New Zealand, and Uruguay, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples.


What does legally married mean ?
Click to expand...

Try getting divorced and you'll find out ... :-)
 
Last edited:
Ja, take that you dirty disgusting hetero breeders Now you know what it feels like!!!! hehe kidding.

Why dont they just make both ways legal for both orientations. They may not like it, but many Christian gay people out there that would like to go the proper marriage route as it is part of their faith. Some straight people are not religious and would prefer a civil partnership where religion is not really involved.
 
Religion is not involved in a marriage.

You can get married anywhere besides a church, but you can't get married in a church without the legal signing of the marriage contract.
 
I know...but marriage do have a religious connection. Civil partnership does not...unless you have a religious ceremony with a willing priest, dominee etc.
 
daveza said:
Religion is not involved in a marriage.

You can get married anywhere besides a church, but you can't get married in a church without the legal signing of the marriage contract.
Click to expand...

Depends on the individuals and their religious beliefs.
 
This story is from the UK, but from the South African perspective, I think our civil unions act or whatever its called was made because the religous groups didnt want gays to be able to "marry".

This story is pathetic on the part of the 2 people, as if it is the same as in SA, the effect is EXACTLY the same as marriage in the normal way, so they wouldnt succeed here if they took it to court.
 
ocleroux said:
I know...but marriage do have a religious connection. Civil partnership does not...unless you have a religious ceremony with a willing priest, dominee etc.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a traditionally civil institution. The fact that religions have co-opted it notwithstanding.

lordrage said:
This story is from the UK, but from the South African perspective, I think our civil unions act or whatever its called was made because the religous groups didnt want gays to be able to "marry".

This story is pathetic on the part of the 2 people, as if it is the same as in SA, the effect is EXACTLY the same as marriage in the normal way, so they wouldnt succeed here if they took it to court.
Click to expand...
They're not the same. That's the whole point. If they were there'd be no need for this civil union nonsense. Marriage is the word that means civil union.

Of course I'm not opposed to religious people getting a religious union, I just don't think they should be allowed to call it marriage ;)

Really call it all marriage and if religious people whine tell them where jump off.
 
noxibox said:
Marriage is a traditionally civil institution. The fact that religions have co-opted it notwithstanding.


They're not the same. That's the whole point. If they were there'd be no need for this civil union nonsense. Marriage is the word that means civil union.

Of course I'm not opposed to religious people getting a religious union, I just don't think they should be allowed to call it marriage ;)

Really call it all marriage and if religious people whine tell them where jump off.
Click to expand...

Actually youre wrong it is a traditionaly religious institution. Infact it is traditionaly atributed to God being the creator of the marriage institution, if you are a christian (in fact other religions believe this also ). In history marriages would only be performed in churches as it was considered to be only legit if it was performed before God or by a King who was considered ordained of God. It was only a short time in history that marriages became secular in the sence that you could now be married in a court house or on a ship if thier was no priest pressent.
 
lordrage said:
This story is from the UK, but from the South African perspective, I think our civil unions act or whatever its called was made because the religous groups didnt want gays to be able to "marry".

This story is pathetic on the part of the 2 people, as if it is the same as in SA, the effect is EXACTLY the same as marriage in the normal way, so they wouldnt succeed here if they took it to court.
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken in South Africa, if two men or woman gets married, it is also classified as a marriage in the eyes of the law and government and not a civil union. Whether you do it in church or court is up to you, but you will be married as straight people are.
 
ocleroux said:
I know...but marriage do have a religious connection. Civil partnership does not...unless you have a religious ceremony with a willing priest, dominee etc.
Click to expand...

Well you haven't lived in a Warsaw Pact country before 1989 but over there civil marriages were very common. People would have two marriages - one civil and one religious, unless they were in the Party in which case they usually just had a civil one (in most countries they weren't banned from religious marriage) - of course after 1989 virtually all of those then had religious marriages in churches and Synagogues (to prove they weren't Communists after all).

Religious marriage wasn't recognised by the State, and Civil wasn't recognised by the Church.

In this context this isn't about religion but about assets and taxes. A civil marriage still means you will go through a lengthy divorce, a religious one has nothing to do with tax/assets.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you Peter. I personally dont care if I cant find a dominee that wont marry me. Would be perfectly happy doing it in courst and having a celebration after that....all I am saying is that some gay people out there are religious and therefore for them being denied the opportunity to use the word marriage is a bit of a let down I am sure. In that sense we gay South Africans are lucky that we have been given equal rights in that sens...not "almost" equal rights as in the UK.
 
Ronjay said:
Actually youre wrong it is a traditionaly religious institution. Infact it is traditionaly atributed to God being the creator of the marriage institution, if you are a christian (in fact other religions believe this also ). In history marriages would only be performed in churches as it was considered to be only legit if it was performed before God or by a King who was considered ordained of God. It was only a short time in history that marriages became secular in the sence that you could now be married in a court house or on a ship if thier was no priest pressent.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Methinks you're mistaken. Marriage may be a traditionally religious institution, but it long predates monotheistic religions.
 
Wiki -


For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children.


Although these ' marriages' were performed in religious ceremonies they can hardly be referred to as 'holy matrimony'.
 
No romantics on here by the looks of it....all taxes and "taking them for what they worth in the divorce" with you guys lol hehe. (kidding)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X