Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Heterosexual Couple Take Civil Partnership Case To Supreme Court
Can anybody think of a reason (other than the law as it currently stands) as to why heterosexual couples should not be allowed to enter into a civil partnership?
Because I can’t.
http://
I think the couple make a good point that the current law is “incompatible with equality law”.
Because I can’t.
http://
I think the couple make a good point that the current law is “incompatible with equality law”.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“Zebo....a simple Will would take care of any problems for a couple of sisters like that.”
There’s one thing a will (however simple or complex) will not take care of, Mikey, and that’s inheritance tax (IT). IT is not payable on estates left to spouses (including civil partners). Furthermore, the tax-free element of IT (£325k at present, I think) is transferable on the death of one partner to the other. Neither of these concessions is available to (say) brothers or sisters.
“…but what extra choice would this couple have in a CP, rather than a proper marriage ?”
None. Except the choice to opt for a either in the same way as same-sex couples can. It is quite clear that the CP facility was introduced because the government believed that to allow marriage between same-sex partners would be a step too far if done in one hit. (Much legislation – especially that from the EU – is introduced in this way. “Well we’ve already moved from ‘X’ to ‘Y’, so we might as well move to ‘Z’ now because it’s not that much different.” Whereas a move from ‘X’ to ‘Z’ would be that much different and would not be well received.). When the same-sex marriage legislation was introduced the CP facility should have been abolished at the same time. So long as it is not there will be people who, simply because they are “denied the choice” will kick up a fuss to secure something they don’t really need. It is a result of slapdash legislation introduced by “back of an envelope” government. In these days where "equality" is pursued by some almost to the point of mental illness it is hard to justify denying a facility to someone simply because of their sexual orientation.
There’s one thing a will (however simple or complex) will not take care of, Mikey, and that’s inheritance tax (IT). IT is not payable on estates left to spouses (including civil partners). Furthermore, the tax-free element of IT (£325k at present, I think) is transferable on the death of one partner to the other. Neither of these concessions is available to (say) brothers or sisters.
“…but what extra choice would this couple have in a CP, rather than a proper marriage ?”
None. Except the choice to opt for a either in the same way as same-sex couples can. It is quite clear that the CP facility was introduced because the government believed that to allow marriage between same-sex partners would be a step too far if done in one hit. (Much legislation – especially that from the EU – is introduced in this way. “Well we’ve already moved from ‘X’ to ‘Y’, so we might as well move to ‘Z’ now because it’s not that much different.” Whereas a move from ‘X’ to ‘Z’ would be that much different and would not be well received.). When the same-sex marriage legislation was introduced the CP facility should have been abolished at the same time. So long as it is not there will be people who, simply because they are “denied the choice” will kick up a fuss to secure something they don’t really need. It is a result of slapdash legislation introduced by “back of an envelope” government. In these days where "equality" is pursued by some almost to the point of mental illness it is hard to justify denying a facility to someone simply because of their sexual orientation.
My (same-sex) partner and I entered into a civil partnership back in June. We chose to go with a CP rather than a marriage because, even despite the fact that you can do a marriage in a registry office, we just felt that marriage had religious connotations which CPs don't, so we went for that because it's what we wanted. Although we do more frequently use the word "marriage" in conversation because it's just easier.
I say good luck to them. CPs should be available to everyone or nobody, there's no reason to have them purely available to same-sex couples.
I say good luck to them. CPs should be available to everyone or nobody, there's no reason to have them purely available to same-sex couples.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
ChatterBank84 mins ago
News90 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.