More Attention Seekers Think They Can Change The Law If They Don't Like It.

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/heterosexual-couple-take-fight-for-civil-partnership-to-supreme-court-11372119
The law is very clear, same sex only, do they think them lining the pockets of bI00d sucking lawyers will change that?

[jourdain2]

Yes it is JD, shortened to a PACs. That is France, however. I'm with Jackthehat here. If you care enough about your partnership and are not religious, then a civil wedding is available to all. There is no real point in a Civil Partnership here any more - it was brought in because same-sex marriage was unacceptable at the time. It has always been a problem because heterosexual couples could not access a civil partnership.

Now that the playing-field is level, the idea of Civil Partnership should be extended to all or discarded. Same-sex friends of mind in France have just married, now the law has changed, so I expect that the PACS may also 'die the death'.

[ToraToraTora]

typical Labour half arised job YMB.

[youngmafbog]

Yup, just enough to get some votes.

[youngmafbog]

Ah, here it is:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-may-scrap-civil-partnerships-jk68qb57h

[naomi24]

I don’t really understand why these two don’t just get married in a Civil ceremony, but I do think Civil Partnerships should extend to include pairs who are not ‘couples’, but who are nevertheless sharing their homes and their lives.

[jim360]

On the other hand, at least the Labour Party got around to introducing it. Paved the way for the more meaningful Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act.

I tend to agree that Civil Partnerships should either be extended to all or, preferably, seen as the stop-gap solution that they have become, and therefore scrapped.

[sp1814]

The problem we have now is that when CPs were introduced, no-one at the time predicted that same sex marriages would be introduced a few years later.

Now that gay people can get married, CPs look a bit anachronistic. I think they should be terminated. All those in CPs will continue to have their CPs legally recognised, but there shouldn't be any more. That way, under law - everyone is being treated equally.

I honestly think that the two bringing this case are a little be attention-seeky.

[ludwig]

// "All they want is the choice of marriage or a civil partnership to suit them, which is currently available only to same-sex couples. //

That seems perfectly reasonable. What's the problem?

[ToraToraTora]

well ludders the "problem" is that it's only legal for same sex couples. surprised that the answers above didn't reveal that to you.

[ludwig]

// the "problem" is that it's only legal for same sex couples. //

Yes, you're right. That is the problem. The law is unfair because it discriminates against people on the grounds of their sexuality. I'm surprised you didn't realise that earlier.

[andy-hughes]

I have to say TTT, that if people were not 'attention seekers' as you put it, bad laws would never be changed.

I do think your approach is a little cynical, in terms of seeing the couple as attention-seeking, and lawyers being 'blood suckers'.

If people feel aggrieved by the law as it stands, freedom of speech allows them to protest about it, and if they choose to add legal weight to their argument, that comes at a cost which I am sure they are happy to accept.

[ludwig]

This is simply an anomaly that has been created by legalising marriage between same sex partners. It now means same sex partners have more options available to them in terms of legal contracts of 'coupling'.

It just needs clearing up as a matter of admin, so that everyone is equal under the law, as they are supposed to be. I don't really care if they do that by allowing civil partnerships for mixed sex couples, or just abolishing them for everyone.

[dave50]

Why dont they just get married in a registry office? Its not a religious ceremony, what is wrong with doing that? I really dont see the problem. Attention seekers trying to prove a point.

[jno]

this is about the legal relationship, not the wedding.