| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Civil Partnerships Act 2004 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 8 2004, 04:24 AM (69 Views) | |
| ds9074 | Dec 8 2004, 04:24 AM Post #1 |
|
Admiral
|
Civil Partnership Act 2004 After all the debate about the rights and wrongs the deed has been done and the bill has passed into law. The Act gives civil partners the same rights as married couples and makes amendments to the various laws and rules to that effect. It is described as follows:
Because of the considerable changes to taxation and benefit law that it entails the first civil partnerships will not take place until 2005. I guess then we will see how the Act shakes down and what the wider impacts will be. It will be interesting to see whether New Zealand votes to introduce a similar measure and whether Spain's Parliament votes for gay marriage. If they do the arguments of those in favour will have won 3 significant victories, despite the set back in the USA. Frankly I think this is has been the right way to go about this issue. Its not be fought out in court but instead debated where it should be - in Parliament. Elected representatives have had the chance to dicuss and review the issues and have voted in favour of this compromise measure (as apposed to homosexual marriage). It now has democratic legitimacy having been passed by the House of Commons by 389 votes to 47 with cross party support. I believe this is the best way to resolve this contentious issue and that both sides must accept whatever the democratic outcome. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 8 2004, 07:32 AM Post #2 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
This line is a deal killer for me.
Altering the above line to read this way would accomplish the same thing, yet de-emphasis the religious opposition against such laws.
A law of this nature should benefit a broad segment of the population instead of simply being a law to legitimize gay relationships. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 8 2004, 08:02 AM Post #3 |
|
Admiral
|
There was an amendment brought to do just what you suggest. The reason it was rejected was that the Government felt it would be unworkable and undermine the bill. As it happened both Houses and the 3 main parties agreed with the Government. It would mean that a very large number of people would be able to take account of the special tax and pension rules avaliable to married couples (and now civil partners). For example a son or daughter could enter a civil partnership with their mother or father and go on claiming a part of their pension after their death as a "widowed partner". The potential cost to the state could be massive. Additionally say a daughter entered a civil partnership with her mother for financial reasons. She then meets a man and they want to get married. She would actually have to file for a "divorce" from her mother before she could marry. This could actually have the effect of undermining marriage. Finally the idea of the civil union is that it provides recognition for loving relationships between shall we say 'romantically' attached couples. It only needs to apply to same sex couples because opposite sex couples already have a way of gaining the same legal regonition - marriage. To open up civil partnerships to opposite sex partnerships and non-romantic relationships would undermine marriage and cheapen the worth of the civil partnership for same-sex couples. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



3:18 AM Jul 11