The proposals on new measures to protect the legal rights of co-habiting couples, published today by the Law Commission, constitute a valuable, well thought-out contribution to the debate on the rights, responsibilities, legal status and social provisions relating to couples, whether married or not.
However, the proposals stop short of recommending any formal legal status for co-habiting couples, such as a registered or civil partnership - for straight couples as well as gay. The primary justification for not making such a recommendation appears to be that this would be viewed by some organisations, such as the Church, as undermining the marriage institution; and that this might undermine support for the new regulations the Law Commission is recommending.
An alternative view, set out in my blog entry on civil partnerships of 10 July and in a supporting article on new principles for marriage, is that civil partnerships are necessary and desirable for a number of reasons. The proposals made by the Law Commission today are complementary to my own proposals on civil partnerships. Indeed, the Law Commission's recommendations provide a useful regulatory framework for the resolution of financial issues resulting from the break up of a partnership, which was an issue for which I did not make any specific proposals (see items 3 and 4 in the table of differences in the provisions for separating married and unmarried couples in the 10 July post).
The Law Commission's proposals essentially give co-habiting couples the right to opt out of the regulations assuring an equitable resolution of financial and property claims resulting from a separation. The existence of formal (straight as well as gay) civil partnerships would effectively provide the opportunity for couples to opt in to a similar but more extensive set of regulations, whether or not they would otherwise have been eligible to apply for the support envisaged by the Law Commission for couples who have not opted out from it.
This might appear to be merely a technical distinction. However, it relates to more fundamental questions about why civil partnerships for straight couples may still be required even if satisfactory regulations - such as those suggested by the Law Commission - are brought in to protect the rights of separating co-habiting couples and their dependents. These reasons are set out below:
1) Civil partnerships such as those I recommend would not undermine marriage because they would be part of a more comprehensive, 360-degrees reform of the legislation and regulations governing marriage and partnerships. These would be designed to greatly strengthen marriage, and ensure that the commitments made by marrying persons are more far-reaching, strict and enforceable in law. A registered / civil partnership, in this context, would be similar to current civil marriage in terms of the degree and scope of commitment that was being made - less than the full commitment of a marriage, which would be greater than that which is formally prescribed for civil marriage in the present.
2) The full set of proposals I make involve the legalisation of marriage for gay couples, which would involve exactly the same set of rights and responsibilities as those applying to straight couples. Religious marriage would be preserved as a heterosexual-only institution - unless the Church or other religious body decided otherwise. But the civil law regulating marriages consecrated in a formal religious context would be the same as that which applied to marriages - gay or straight - formalised in a civil ceremony.
If gay marriage were introduced, there would be a need to consider whether the existing regulations governing (gay) civil partnerships should be retained or modified. Having created the legal entity of civil partnerships, it could be considered unjust to expect gay civil partners to be legally obliged to 'upgrade' their status to that of married partners if they did not choose to do so - especially if marriage implied a stricter set of rights and responsibilities than do civil partnerships and marriages today. However, if gay persons were allowed to remain civil partners even if gay marriage were legalised, it would seem discriminatory to deny the same set of options to straight couples: marriage, civil partnership or co-habitation (governed by regulations such as those recommended by the Law Commission).
Clearly, gay marriage is not immediately on the agenda, and the Law Commission's proposals do at least represent a sensible option for improving the protection afforded to co-habiting couples that currently choose not to marry. However, in my view at least, it is inevitable that gay marriage will eventually be introduced. This is because, in a civil context, it is discriminatory that gay persons cannot marry but straight persons can. People of a conventional religious conviction are entitled to hold the belief that gay marriage is an invalid concept. But then equally, if gay marriage were legalised, religious institutions would still be under no obligation to accept them as valid - just as, for instance, the Catholic Church does not accept that a civil marriage entered into by a Catholic without the consent of the Church is valid; or the Church of England does not necessarily accept the validity of second marriages. The fact that the Church holds a particular opinion about gay marriage should not prevent secular society from reforming the civil marriage institution so that it is not discriminatory.
However, even if gay marriage is never legalised, there is still an argument to be made that denying civil partnerships to straight couples is discriminatory under current legislation. This is for two related reasons: a) it involves denying to straight couples the rights and responsibilities bestowed on gay civil partners; b) as part of this, straight couples are denied the possibility to opt in to a particular set of regulations (those applying to civil partnerships), which is not denied to gay couples.
Any set of regulations designed to protect the rights of co-habiting / unmarried couples must surely apply equally to straight and gay couples, including the measures being proposed by the Law Commission. So if co-habiting couples - gay or straight - are allowed to opt out of the minimal set of supportive legal regulations advocated by the Law Commission, they should also be allowed to opt in to the more maximal set of regulations involved in civil partnerships.
But ultimately, only the legalisation of gay civil marriage will enable full equality and a balanced set of regulations, in which gay and straight couples will be allowed the same set of options: marriage, civil partnership and legally protected co-habitation.
However, the proposals stop short of recommending any formal legal status for co-habiting couples, such as a registered or civil partnership - for straight couples as well as gay. The primary justification for not making such a recommendation appears to be that this would be viewed by some organisations, such as the Church, as undermining the marriage institution; and that this might undermine support for the new regulations the Law Commission is recommending.
An alternative view, set out in my blog entry on civil partnerships of 10 July and in a supporting article on new principles for marriage, is that civil partnerships are necessary and desirable for a number of reasons. The proposals made by the Law Commission today are complementary to my own proposals on civil partnerships. Indeed, the Law Commission's recommendations provide a useful regulatory framework for the resolution of financial issues resulting from the break up of a partnership, which was an issue for which I did not make any specific proposals (see items 3 and 4 in the table of differences in the provisions for separating married and unmarried couples in the 10 July post).
The Law Commission's proposals essentially give co-habiting couples the right to opt out of the regulations assuring an equitable resolution of financial and property claims resulting from a separation. The existence of formal (straight as well as gay) civil partnerships would effectively provide the opportunity for couples to opt in to a similar but more extensive set of regulations, whether or not they would otherwise have been eligible to apply for the support envisaged by the Law Commission for couples who have not opted out from it.
This might appear to be merely a technical distinction. However, it relates to more fundamental questions about why civil partnerships for straight couples may still be required even if satisfactory regulations - such as those suggested by the Law Commission - are brought in to protect the rights of separating co-habiting couples and their dependents. These reasons are set out below:
1) Civil partnerships such as those I recommend would not undermine marriage because they would be part of a more comprehensive, 360-degrees reform of the legislation and regulations governing marriage and partnerships. These would be designed to greatly strengthen marriage, and ensure that the commitments made by marrying persons are more far-reaching, strict and enforceable in law. A registered / civil partnership, in this context, would be similar to current civil marriage in terms of the degree and scope of commitment that was being made - less than the full commitment of a marriage, which would be greater than that which is formally prescribed for civil marriage in the present.
2) The full set of proposals I make involve the legalisation of marriage for gay couples, which would involve exactly the same set of rights and responsibilities as those applying to straight couples. Religious marriage would be preserved as a heterosexual-only institution - unless the Church or other religious body decided otherwise. But the civil law regulating marriages consecrated in a formal religious context would be the same as that which applied to marriages - gay or straight - formalised in a civil ceremony.
If gay marriage were introduced, there would be a need to consider whether the existing regulations governing (gay) civil partnerships should be retained or modified. Having created the legal entity of civil partnerships, it could be considered unjust to expect gay civil partners to be legally obliged to 'upgrade' their status to that of married partners if they did not choose to do so - especially if marriage implied a stricter set of rights and responsibilities than do civil partnerships and marriages today. However, if gay persons were allowed to remain civil partners even if gay marriage were legalised, it would seem discriminatory to deny the same set of options to straight couples: marriage, civil partnership or co-habitation (governed by regulations such as those recommended by the Law Commission).
Clearly, gay marriage is not immediately on the agenda, and the Law Commission's proposals do at least represent a sensible option for improving the protection afforded to co-habiting couples that currently choose not to marry. However, in my view at least, it is inevitable that gay marriage will eventually be introduced. This is because, in a civil context, it is discriminatory that gay persons cannot marry but straight persons can. People of a conventional religious conviction are entitled to hold the belief that gay marriage is an invalid concept. But then equally, if gay marriage were legalised, religious institutions would still be under no obligation to accept them as valid - just as, for instance, the Catholic Church does not accept that a civil marriage entered into by a Catholic without the consent of the Church is valid; or the Church of England does not necessarily accept the validity of second marriages. The fact that the Church holds a particular opinion about gay marriage should not prevent secular society from reforming the civil marriage institution so that it is not discriminatory.
However, even if gay marriage is never legalised, there is still an argument to be made that denying civil partnerships to straight couples is discriminatory under current legislation. This is for two related reasons: a) it involves denying to straight couples the rights and responsibilities bestowed on gay civil partners; b) as part of this, straight couples are denied the possibility to opt in to a particular set of regulations (those applying to civil partnerships), which is not denied to gay couples.
Any set of regulations designed to protect the rights of co-habiting / unmarried couples must surely apply equally to straight and gay couples, including the measures being proposed by the Law Commission. So if co-habiting couples - gay or straight - are allowed to opt out of the minimal set of supportive legal regulations advocated by the Law Commission, they should also be allowed to opt in to the more maximal set of regulations involved in civil partnerships.
But ultimately, only the legalisation of gay civil marriage will enable full equality and a balanced set of regulations, in which gay and straight couples will be allowed the same set of options: marriage, civil partnership and legally protected co-habitation.
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment