Does the California gay marriage ruling mean it’s time to reconsider ‘civil partnership’ terminology in the UK?
Long-term intimate partnerships of any sexuality that are not united in marriage or civil partnership are, in the UK, described as ‘common law’–my beloved is, in effect, my common-law husband and I am, of course, his until such time as we undertake a legal ceremony in a registry office to officially sanction our union. But we’d like to get married, not civil partnered. Common law relationships enjoy many but not all the benefits of marriage and civil partnership, which is itself highly discriminatory against those couples whose everyday lives mirror those of the married and civil partnered in every way.
The state rewards those who marry most of all, with those who civil partner coming a close second, but there should be no hierarchy of legitimacy at all.
If we ever decide to start a family through surrogacy, then as things stand the only way for both of us to be named as parents is to hold back on a civil ceremony until after any child is born, and one of us named on documentation as the birth father. After that bit of paperwork the surrogate mother would then sign another bit of paperwork handing over all responsibility for the child to the named father. It’s a permanent handover, with no going back, and yes, horribly bureaucratic when you consider a child’s future is involved—but nevertheless necessary.
But then you’ve got just one dad, and one other man who has no legal recognition or rights as a parent—until a civil partnership ceremony takes place, when the other partner becomes, as with marriage, the step-parent with all the attendant responsibilities and legal rights.
This is a multi-page entry: page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4
tags: ceremony, civil partnerships, comprehension, equality, gay marriage, inequality, love, marriage, parenting, partnerships, perception, rights, ritual, society, surrogacy
2 comments on “Does the California gay marriage ruling mean it’s time to reconsider ‘civil partnership’ terminology in the UK?”
May 16th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I’m all for allowing anyone who so desires to get married, but let me stand and not forever hold my peace.
I’m not a fan of marriage — the legal side of things, that is. Frankly, I don’t need a government body to validate my love and caring for someone. I realize there are a few benefits in allowing the government to sanction the union, but what a mess of the people grow apart.
My thinking is it’s all down to choice. Everyone should be allow the opportunity to choose who they want their relationship to develop and grow and those choices should be done mutually between the two lives involved.
If they choose to have a government agency “validate” their relationship, they should also be well informed of the consequences of getting out of it if things go sour or the two grow apart.
That’s it, the answer to everything is education! With this epiphany, I shall solve all the world’s problems!
May 16th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
@Howard: The answer to everything IS education. Which is why politicians always pretend to see it as important but always ensure that what is taught doesn’t involve anything that would rock the boat…
x
have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment. Registration is quick and easy. Just click here to get yourself a free account.