Heterosexual couple lose civil union appeal

Watch
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ps-court-rules

A heterosexual couple who brought a judicial review to look into whether permitting only gay couples to have civil unions is discriminatory has failed in the Court of Appeal.

Personally I think civil unions should be abolished. The whole point of them was to provide a legal union that wasn't marriage to gay people. Now that you can marry irrespective of the gender of your partner, it makes no sense to continue civil unions (which only gay people can currently enter into).

The people saying they must be allowed a civil union, that somehow marriage is inherently sexist / patriarchal / religious just seem a bit confused and precious. You do not need to get married in a church, you can do it at a registry. A marriage is what you make it, and the term used is completely immaterial given civil unions are in every relevant way legally identical to marriages.

In short, if you want to enter into a legally-binding union with your partner, get married. If you don't want to, then don't. Complaining that the legal terminology doesn't suit you and is somehow oppressive seems just a bit pathetic and is itself based on a completely superficial understanding of the current law
1
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Unfortunately civil partnerships cannot be abolished yet as gay marriage is still unrecognised/outlawed in Northern Ireland. The law is clearly a bit of a mess but it works for the time being, and I agree that there is really no need to allow a civil union for non-gay partners within GB.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Except they can only deal with the law as it is. they only just lost and not for substantive legal reasons. I expect it to go to the supreme court, which will take x more years and by which time the government may well have abolished them.
0
reply
Dodgypirate
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
"Equality".
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Dodgypirate)
"Equality".
Nice "contribution"
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by 999tigger)
Except they can only deal with the law as it is. they only just lost and not for substantive legal reasons.
It wasn't "just" lost, nor was it a "technical" loss (an actual technical loss would be if, for example, their case was struck out for missing a filing deadline or something of that nature).

It would behoove those who make these assertions to actually possess some grasp of the law. I've read the judgment; it orovided well-reasoned bases to decline to allow the appeal and to give the government the time they need to make a decision either to expand civil partnerships to heterosexuals or to abolish it. The reality is that these claimants are suffering no substantive disadvantage and no less favourable treatment.

And those who actually have some grasp of the law would know the courts in any case lack the power to offer any substantive remedy. The best they can get is a declaration of incompatibility, given all the relevant legal provisions are entrenched in primary statutes. Their case comes across as a whinge; an unfortunate confluence between whiney SJWs who feel marriage = patriarchy and homophobic bigots who would love to "prove" heterosexuals are discriminated against.

I expect it to go to the supreme court
Really? You expect it on what basis? Just because a case is prominent doesn't mean the Supreme Court grants (to use an Americanism) 'certiorari'
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Are there any ceremonial differences between a marriage and a civil union?

In other words things that a marriage requires by law but a civil union does not?

If not then I don't see the issue, although I think there are some legal differences between the two when it comes to divorce.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
I'd rather just abolish marriage as a formal legal institution and just have civil partnerships for the legal and financial purposes, regardless. People can still have wedding ceremonies, sure, and I have no doubt they would still want to, but these would no longer be attached to any legal process, unless you wanted to have a wedding ceremony and a civil partnership registration simultaneously.

People still attach particular connotations and prejudices to the term "marriage" that stops them treating it just as a legal instrument. Scrap it.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
It wasn't "just" lost, nor was it a "technical" loss (an actual technical loss would be if, for example, their case was struck out for missing a filing deadline or something of that nature).

It would behoove those who make these assertions to actually possess some grasp of the law. I've read the judgment; it orovided well-reasoned bases to decline to allow the appeal and to give the government the time they need to make a decision either to expand civil partnerships to heterosexuals or to abolish it. The reality is that these claimants are suffering no substantive disadvantage and no less favourable treatment.

And those who actually have some grasp of the law would know the courts in any case lack the power to offer any substantive remedy. The best they can get is a declaration of incompatibility, given all the relevant legal provisions are entrenched in primary statutes. Their case comes across as a whinge; an unfortunate confluence between whiney SJWs who feel marriage = patriarchy and homophobic bigots who would love to "prove" heterosexuals are discriminated against.



Really? You expect it on what basis? Just because a case is prominent doesn't mean the Supreme Court grants (to use an Americanism) 'certiorari'

Will wait and see I preferred Lady Justice Arden's dissenting opinion.
0
reply
jackadams422
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Are there any ceremonial differences between a marriage and a civil union?

In other words things that a marriage requires by law but a civil union does not?

If not then I don't see the issue, although I think there are some legal differences between the two when it comes to divorce.
Legal differences are pretty negligible. Marriage remains a religious institution. As a gay guy personally I find it absurd that civil partnerships haven't been extended to heterosexual couples...

Disclaimer - I was against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2011 but I've came around to it since.
0
reply
Ladbants
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
I think it's better if people who are in a committed long term relationship celebrate that relationship through marriage. Marriage has been a vital part of our social fabric for centuries, we should encourage more people to marry, not fewer.
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by jackadams422)
Legal differences are pretty negligible. Marriage remains a religious institution.
No, it isn't. Marriage is a civil institution; you need not have any religious involvement to get married. It's done at the local council's registry office. No mention of god, no propitiations to the deities, just the registration of an agreement between two people contracted under the law of England & Wales.
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Ladbants)
I think it's better if people who are in a committed long term relationship celebrate that relationship through marriage. Marriage has been a vital part of our social fabric for centuries, we should encourage more people to marry, not fewer.
Agreed. Marriage is a vital institution and the core relationship around which our society is built. It is a huge mistake to undermine it by creating a new legal relationship every time a few SJWs say the 'label' (marriage) offends them and they want a different label for a legally-identical relationship.

Who knows, soon some people might say 'civil partnership' offends them and they want yet another label for a legally-identical relationship.

Marriage itself, in the sense of the civil legal institution, has no religious or misogynistic "baggage". Marriage is what the couple make it. Having said that, we should encourage people to adhere to 'traditional' marriage insofar as it is a legal institution to encourage faithfulness, monogamy and the raising of children (I apply this to both heterosexual and homosexual couples)
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What support do you need with your UCAS application?

I need help researching unis (20)
14.39%
I need help researching courses (8)
5.76%
I need help with filling out the application form (7)
5.04%
I need help with my personal statement (56)
40.29%
I need help with understanding how to make my application stand out (35)
25.18%
I need help with something else (let us know in the thread!) (3)
2.16%
I'm feeling confident about my application and don't need any help at the moment (10)
7.19%

Watched Threads

View All