Civil partnerships illegal for heterosexuals - surely this is discriminatory?

link to story on BBC

The 2004 Civil Partnership Act stipulates that only same-sex couples are eligible for civil partnerships.

The review is expected to be heard later next year.

The couple say they are challenging the registrars at Chelsea Register Office, who on 1 October refused to register their notice of intention to form a civil partnership "on the basis of our genders and sexual orientation".

They are also challenging the government, which they say "continues to discriminate against long-term cohabiting opposite-sex couples".

Their test case is believed to be the first attempt in the British courts to make partnerships available to heterosexual people.

How can a law only be applied to a subset of society without being discriminatory?

a reply to: johnb

I agree the law should be for all but it is not like that couple can't just go get married and get the same benefits.
Can you not go down to a courthouse and get married in the UK?

This is the result of the stupidity of having different rules for different people. Two (or more) consenting, non-related adults should be able to legalize (stupid to have a need for that in the 1st place) their relationship any which way they choose.

a reply to: johnb

This is rich.

Let's use the same argument that homosexuals used to get their right to marry in the first place, against the very program that provided those rights.

They should also file suit against the organizations who created this mess in the first place. Governments would have just as easily transferred all of it under the term "marriage" had it not been for these groups demanding their special word remain theirs.

It's not discriminatory if both government contracts supply the exact same rights either way.

~Tenth

What's the difference between marriage and civil partnership?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
What's the difference between marriage and civil partnership?

The placement of letters in a sentence.

~Tenth

So people are mad because they cant have the same benefits as marriage or common law partners, wow is this what people are mad about in this day and age.

I thought in the UK for couples together for X amount of time are classified as having been in a Civil Partnership?. The courts need to established that when women try and steal your stuff even if not married but you have still had kids together, lived together etc for a long time.

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
I thought in the UK for couples together for X amount of time are classified as having been in a Civil Partnership?. The courts need to established that when women try and steal your stuff even if not married but you have still had kids together, lived together etc for a long time.

No, that makes you a 'common law' man or wife.

Let's face it, this is a publicity scam. The couple have said that they didn't want a marriage because they didn't want the ceremony, the father giving the bride away etc....... hmmmm, some people would say a registry office marriage would be the same thing. Bit pathetic really. Gays had to campaign for decades to get something that recognised they were in a relationship, straight people didn't.

What's the big deal?

Change the law.

a reply to: johnb

If they just made benefits and taxes equal to every individual regardless of marital status, none of this non sense would even matter.

Marriage is about a union between two people, Society perverting that to mean you get less taxes, and more benefits are the reasons all this nonsense started.

They may be trying to make a point,

If you are 'normal' theres something wrong with you.

Why should a couple not be allowed to enter a civil partership if the couple next door can?..

Does seem a waste of time though

originally posted by: michael1888
They may be trying to make a point,

If you are 'normal' theres something wrong with you.

Why should a couple not be allowed to enter a civil partership if the couple next door can?..

Does seem a waste of time though

Because the civil partnership was initially created to allow same sex couples some rights, but not a state recognised marriage? Do you not understand that? It was effectively like almost being married but not recognised as one. Things have moved on now so technically no same sex couple needs the civil partnership as they can be legally classed as married.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
What's the difference between marriage and civil partnership?

I actually have a relative that is given tax breaks due to civil partnership. A man and woman with 3 children, both have lived together and filed taxes conjoined for over 10 years, they get the same tax breaks with their children and employment as a married couple. They never became married due to typical spousal affairs and also don't agree with marriage, however they are still together raising children.

a reply to: johnb

So..... straight people want marriage to be exclusively for heterosexual unions, but we create a civil union only for homosexuals so as to have a clear distinction to shut the critics up and now we hear cries of 'discrimination.

No, nothing hypocritical going on here at all

*End sarcasm*

Uncommitted -

No, that makes you a 'common law' man or wife.

That's what I'd say too.

In some religious beliefs, if the man and woman do the nasty, they are married in this physical union esp. if resulting with children that are literally a union of a man and woman.

It will fail at this time and here is why:

Same-sex marriage was just approved earlier in 2014 in the UK. Now that it has been, they are working on the laws for such. They are already planning to look at civil unions and those laws next to equalize it out. This kind of case, opens up a can of worms that no justice or law maker would want to touch. If they sue on the grounds of discrimination, then all same sex couples could use the ruling to sue and win a case of such discrimination and demand compensation for all of the years of not being allowed to marry.

Seen as legal marriage is nothing but a contract anyway maybe it should be done away with the one size fits all and it should be made possible to have marriages drawn up tailored to the couple.

I know im a bit late here...however

I suppose idont understand!

I still dont know why Jim and Bob can have a civil partnership but Mick and Carol can not.a reply to: uncommitted

Well it's been a few years but it's about to make the Supreme Court here in the UK, latest case was dismissed but the judge did say it was probably in breach of their human rights.