Turn on thread page Beta

B565 - Civil Unions Bill 2013 watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    B565 - Civil Unions Bill 2013, TSR Green Party


    Civil Unions Bill
    An act to introduce a single legal union between couples of all orientations for legal purposes.

    1. Introduction of a Legal Civil Union
    1.1 A legally recognised Civil Union for legal purposes is to be established. This civil union will be the only legally binding union between a man and a woman.
    1.2 Civil Unions may legally bind together;
    1.2.1 two people
    1.3 The legal rights of those who have entered a Civil Union will be exactly those as previously given to those in legal marriage .
    1.4 A Civil Union ceremony may not be performed in property owned or used by a religious organisation.
    1.5 The use of religious content in a Civil Union ceremony is prohibited.
    1.6 A Civil Union must be performed by a qualified registrar whose qualification does not stem from religious affiliation.

    2. Non-State Unions
    2.1 Non-state organisations such as religious organisations may perform ceremonies to unionise two people together however these ceremonies will not be legally recognised.
    2.2 If a religious organisation wishes to prohibit their members from performing non-state union ceremonies between two people they have that right.
    2.3 Non-State organisations and participants of a non-state union may use any terminology to refer to these non-state unions excepting Civil Union.

    3. Introduction and Transitional Period
    3.1 The Civil Union will be introduced for new legal partnerships upon commencement of this act.
    3.2 Those who were legally joined together under the old marital system will not be affected by this change.

    4. Definitions
    4.1. Civil Union: The secular replacement to marriage outlined in this bill.
    4.2. Non-State Union: Any form of union performed by an unlicensed registrar either for religious purposes or other purposes that takes place from the commencement of this act.

    5. Commencement, Short Title and Extent
    5.1 This act will commence from the 31st June 2013
    5.2 This act may be cited as the Civil Union Act 2013.
    5.3 This act will extend to the United Kingdom.

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    aye
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can we not just have both systems? I'm sure there are people who like the idea of being married, whether they're gay, straight, or halfway between. This notion that we can either have "civil unions" or the apparently exclusive concept of marriage seems to me to be wholly fictitious. Give folk the choice as to how they define their partnerships, don't remove a choice in the name of equality.

    Outright nay.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1618273

    You should probably repeal this.

    .....

    As for the bill, will decide later.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Can we not just have both systems? I'm sure there are people who like the idea of being married, whether they're gay, straight, or halfway between. This notion that we can either have "civil unions" or the apparently exclusive concept of marriage seems to me to be wholly fictitious. Give folk the choice as to how they define their partnerships, don't remove a choice in the name of equality.

    Outright nay.
    People will still have the choice to get a religious marriage if they so wish but for legal purposes a civil union would be used, it's mainly about the separation of religious institution from legal institution. You can call it marriage if you want, but at the end of the day, in the modern era it acts as a legal document providing certain rights rather than any great other purpose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    People will still have the choice to get a religious marriage if they so wish but for legal purposes a civil union would be used, it's mainly about the separation of religious institution from legal institution. You can call it marriage if you want, but at the end of the day, in the modern era it acts as a legal document providing certain rights rather than any great other purpose.
    Sure, but why then do you not provide people with the legal definition of civil marriage? Do the Green Party serious believe that marriage should be defined solely as a religious ceremony? That's kinda backward thinking from a supposedly progressive party. Advancing the boundaries of equality of legal status for couples shouldn't mean throwing out a sense of tradition that, like it or not, people are genuinely attached to. As I say, I think this is an ill-judged move by ideologues.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Aye.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Adorno makes a good point. Leaning towards a no on this.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.

    This is unnecessary and I much prefer the bill by the tories, which I believe adequately covers this and I don't see how this can feasibly exist alongside that legislation.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1618273 (as Rakas pointed out)
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I can't see a reason to make this change.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Sure, but why then do you not provide people with the legal definition of civil marriage? Do the Green Party serious believe that marriage should be defined solely as a religious ceremony? That's kinda backward thinking from a supposedly progressive party. Advancing the boundaries of equality of legal status for couples shouldn't mean throwing out a sense of tradition that, like it or not, people are genuinely attached to. As I say, I think this is an ill-judged move by ideologues.
    Marriage will still exist, it will just not be recognised as a legally binding contract between two people and the state, which is a bananas idea anyway since it forces the state to interfere with who is and is not eligible to marry each other.

    Marriage is down to people and the love that they have for each other. There is absolutely no reason why the state should have to intervene and tell people who they can and can't marry, or that they can only marry one person at a time, or any of these restrictions. Provided that consent is forthcoming, people should be able to marry whomever they like and government should respect people's ability to make those choices.

    What we want with this bill is to separate the personal aspects of marriage from the legal aspects. We want to allow marriage to be a matter of personal choice, whilst still providing the legal benefits to those who want them. Unless we disassociate marriage from its current legal implications, we will never be able to give people the freedom to marry in any meaningful way.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Can we not just have both systems? I'm sure there are people who like the idea of being married, whether they're gay, straight, or halfway between. This notion that we can either have "civil unions" or the apparently exclusive concept of marriage seems to me to be wholly fictitious. Give folk the choice as to how they define their partnerships, don't remove a choice in the name of equality.

    Outright nay.
    Very well said.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand why this is needed? As others have pointed out, we already have equal marriage rights AND equal civil partnership rights (not all that sure why we even need the latter) in TSR Land...

    Looks like a pretty pointless name change to me.
    Offline

    15
    I would prefer the state moving out of marriage, but our current system is fine I dont see why we need this. No
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Sure, but why then do you not provide people with the legal definition of civil marriage? Do the Green Party serious believe that marriage should be defined solely as a religious ceremony? That's kinda backward thinking from a supposedly progressive party. Advancing the boundaries of equality of legal status for couples shouldn't mean throwing out a sense of tradition that, like it or not, people are genuinely attached to. As I say, I think this is an ill-judged move by ideologues.
    You, and all your cronies lining up to agree with you, are objecting on this immature semantic grounds that have absolutely nothing to do with the change we are making. We're not abolishing marriage, we're removing a religious institution (in marriage) from the legal framework of union between two men and women. The idea that marriage is some kind of legal idea, rather than a deeply religious idea is grounded in insanity. Marriage and the current marital system is a relic of a time when the church and religion governed above common sense. The purpose of using civil unions is to provide a legal union between two people of whatever sexuality/gender rather than having the current anomaly. It's fundamentally about legal equality.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Just a thought, you may want to change the wording from "man and woman" (1.1) to something that encompasses the idea of people of all orientations.)

    Could someone explain to me what the difference is between a "civil union" and a marriage that isn't to do with religion? Both are events that join together two people formally and celebrate their relationship, I don't see why we need to make a distinction between the two.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donniee)
    (Just a thought, you may want to change the wording from "man and woman" (1.1) to something that encompasses the idea of people of all orientations.)

    Could someone explain to me what the difference is between a "civil union" and a marriage that isn't to do with religion? Both are events that join together two people formally and celebrate their relationship, I don't see why we need to make a distinction between the two.
    There's no difference other than religion, and religion is mostly removed from TSR marriage law anyway. As you just pointed out, and no one else seems to have noticed (including myself), this seems like a step backwards...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    You, and all your cronies lining up to agree with you, are objecting on this immature semantic grounds that have absolutely nothing to do with the change we are making. We're not abolishing marriage, we're removing a religious institution (in marriage) from the legal framework of union between two men and women. The idea that marriage is some kind of legal idea, rather than a deeply religious idea is grounded in insanity. Marriage and the current marital system is a relic of a time when the church and religion governed above common sense. The purpose of using civil unions is to provide a legal union between two people of whatever sexuality/gender rather than having the current anomaly. It's fundamentally about legal equality.
    But there's no religious aspect to marriage now! (Apart from the homosexual equality thing which has already been addressed in TSR.) By saying religion is in the legal framework of marriage, you're saying that you have to have a religious ceremony to get married, and that's a pile of horse excrement. I've been to three separate weddings which are registered marriages. That means there's no religion. The entire ceremony is the two people signing the marriage document in the presence of a registrar.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    You, and all your cronies lining up to agree with you, are objecting on this immature semantic grounds that have absolutely nothing to do with the change we are making. We're not abolishing marriage, we're removing a religious institution (in marriage) from the legal framework of union between two men and women. The idea that marriage is some kind of legal idea, rather than a deeply religious idea is grounded in insanity. Marriage and the current marital system is a relic of a time when the church and religion governed above common sense. The purpose of using civil unions is to provide a legal union between two people of whatever sexuality/gender rather than having the current anomaly. It's fundamentally about legal equality.
    Interesting, since this bill defines the civil union as, and I quote, 'the only legally binding union between a man and a woman' (1.1). In any sensible reading, then, you are abolishing marriage as a legal union between men and women but fail to establish the same parameters for same-sex partnerships. Thus, thanks to the Tory act cited above, you bill makes it possible for two men and two women to get married, legally and bindingly, but not a man and a woman which is a bizarre state of affairs to institute.

    Marriage has been a civil institution in Britain since the mid nineteenth century: thus, generations of Britons have been married in a fashion perfectly consistent with its being a legal idea. In Scotland it dates back even further, which is why Gretna Green was so famous as a place to elope and get married. This ahistorical version of the past that you're trying to present just doesn't wash, I'm afraid. This isn't about legal equality - it can't be when you define civil unions as "the only legally binding union between a man and a woman" - this is about an ideology which purports to be egalitarian and progressive, but is, in truth, wholly inconsistent with that. Marriage can be, and has been, a secular, civil institution that is fully able to be opened up to all citizens in this country, regardless of their sexuality.

    Now, I think the people you paint as my cronies may well object to that portrayal - I should be surprised if they do not - but it is beneath the merits of this discussion to throw out, so quickly, insults of that kind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qwertish)
    There's no difference other than religion, and religion is mostly removed from TSR marriage law anyway. As you just pointed out, and no one else seems to have noticed (including myself), this seems like a step backwards...
    I spotted it, I was simply saving it for the point in the discussion where it could be used to prove the folly of this bill. Conveniently, that's in the post above!
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 23, 2013
The home of Results and Clearing

2,402

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.