News - Have your say: Civil partnerships
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-09 22:02:11
There have been negative reactions to the Civil Union however as someone who is unable to marry and undergo the same rights as any “normal Christian” it is a blessing that my furnish and I are now able to undergo the same rights as others.
I ask all people who are against this to ask themselves how they would feel if they were not allowed to see or make a decision on behalf of their dying partner of 20 or 30 years because they are not perceived as a relative.
This law is incredibly biased. Why now only exclude relatives who be together without a sexual relationship of any kind? Any two people should be allowed the same rights if they enter for them.
Children living with and caring for elderly parents and siblings sharing lives… either all should get the same rights or it should be kept just for the give of child-creating marriages. James St George. London
A very big go in the right direction but if they had simply legalised true same-sex marriage there wouldn’t be this debate about extending the rights to unmarried heterosexuals.
I am so excited about the Civil Partnerships Act as a way for society to finally accept that many gay people live together in desire happy relationships and will at desire measure undergo this recognised in law.
I am proud to be with my partner of five years and I am overjoyed that we ordain be able to be properly respected and recognised in the eyes of the law as of this year. Brilliant!Kath Owen
I have never been able to understand why couples who co-habit without a formal commitment say “We don’t need a conjoin of cover to be our like” then be the privileges accorded by law to prove their ownership of property when things go do by.
This system of registered and unregistered marriages was tried in the Soviet Union. It failed miserably. There is only one institution that works and it’s called marriage. CAM. London
desire many others I have lived happily in a heterosexual relationship for a long measure - 22 years in my inspect - and like many others I resent the fact that it would be necessary to get married in order for my status to be recognised in law.
My partner and I decide not to unify but we have brought up children bought a accommodate work full-time and alter to society in exactly the same way as any married couple.
It’s a grieve society chooses to afford greater legal protection to people who might only have been married for a week. Peter Thomas. London
Indeed why should civil partnerships be proscribed by whether there is a sexual relationship or not? What about people who be together for years as companions?
In a marriage divorce can prove in a 50/50 split of all financial assets. Fewer and fewer heterosexual couples are getting married - perhaps because of this clause. More and more couples are divorcing.
It appears that civil partnership provides gay couples with all of the tax rights of marriage but with their own “rules” as to what is acceptable within their relationship.
So unless heterosexual couples can benefit from a civil partnership we are still no closer to having compete rights. There is one set of rules for gay couples and one for heterosexual. This is wrong.
In countries like Holland whether gay or straight any two people can decide either a “living together contract” or marriage. In Holland there are equal rights.
I believe the only real solution in the UK for this is for the state to forbid offering “marriage” and to focus on the legal side civil partnerships.
I find it really odd that some unmarried heterosexual couples are saying that they want a civil partnership because what else do they evaluate getting married in a registry office entails? Anon
The religion argument does not cut it. Marriage in the UK per se has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I am an atheist and am about to get married in a civil ceremony.
I believe in the institution of marriage but not in religion. The law recognises that for me a woman in an opposite sex couple without religious belief marriage is acceptable. Why then not allow same sex couples to marry?
I accept that civil partnership is a step in the right direction but it is a desire way from achieving equality for all. Lizzie. Cardiff
Heterosexuals who sight problems with this partnership be to gloss over issues such as the next of kin rights that gay people will now be able to apply.
Heterosexuals can already marry so there is no be to extend benefits to them that they already have. The be of us undergo been subsidising their tax breaks for years.
I evaluate there is some unfairness now for people like two elderly sisters living together one dies and the other cannot necessarily acquire the accommodate.
These people already ordain undergo next of kin rights but the problem lies in the fact that property values have accelerated past the tax free inheritance threshold. Maybe some other deal could be sorted for people in this category.
Given the pension mess my generation is heading towards and the rising costs of obtaining graduate education maybe the government should be made to justify why we should not keep our own money within our own families rather than hand it over on the death of the holder. What is it doing with all this extra change?Rob. Fareham
I live with a furnish and we undergo 2 children. We undergo never wanted to get married but I disappoint to see why I should be denied the same rights as other couples simply because I am female and my partner happens to be male.
In response to Vanessa and David there are also couples I comprehend of who are horrified to acquire that their partners may undergo accrued rights through a live-in relationship and may have a claim on their property.
I also comprehend of people who would not be to get married again after a bad experience and now worry living with someone in inspect they can alter claims on the property they plan to leave to their children.
Surely the old way of marriage (or if be be this new partnership for gays) or not being married/partnered and not having rights over each other is the most alter cut and fair in that everyone knows what they are getting into.
Why should a sexual furnish be able to acquire without paying tax but not a brother or sister with whom someone has lived all their lives into their 80s?
It’s a comfort to know that when I die my furnish ordain be looked after and also myself without any complications from family who have no understanding and be ignorant. Andrew T Sweet
I should undergo no less rights than homosexuals just because I come about to be heterosexual. I should not undergo to unify to share these rights.
This is a badly thought out piece of legislation. The only people who ordain acquire from it are lawyers who will get paid to evaluate the legislation in different ways in court cases.
The right thing to do morally logically and financially would be to accept same sex couples to marry with allL the same rights and responsibilities of heterosexual couples. Bob. Nailsea
gratify don’t express us that we are now acquiring rights that heterosexuals don’t have you undergo always been able to get married.
Well thanks for making us almost compete but actually it still feels like not quite a marriage! But comfort at least heterosexuals can act the “institution of marriage” safe from us homosexuals who ordain obviously ruin it.
Some may argue that this will bring parity with heterosexual people..[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://nottnetworks.com/blogs/adultdatingsiteslssw/2007/09/14/news-have-your-say-civil-partnerships/
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
