Civil Partnerships Are the Best Way To Protect the Rights Of Unmarried Couples

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.

Powered by ScribeFire.

New Principles For Marriages and Partnerships (Part Two)

2 Civil partnerships (gay and straight)

If civil marriages were redefined and reformed in the manner outlined in part one of this essay, then there would be a corresponding need to revise the thinking and legislation regarding civil partnerships. This would be the case for a number of reasons:

1. As marriages, under my proposed set up, would be more strict in terms of the legal and social obligations placed upon them, this could leave a vacuum, whereby the looser commitments many people make today when getting married would no longer have any formal framework within which they could be expressed.

2. As my proposals involve extending civil marriage to gay persons, it would be necessary to at least redefine the current rules relating to gay civil partnerships. If civil partnerships were retained, with or without a modification to the rules governing them, then it would be illogical if not discriminatory to limit them to gay couples.

3. Many people have already argued in favour of some form of official recognition of extra-marital straight relationships as a means of protecting the legal rights of those involved, and providing some means to celebrate and recognise those relationships that does not involve marriage. The current blog entry represents a proposal for precisely this sort of arrangement.

2.0 Guiding principles

2.0.1 Recognition of an existing status, not the start of a new one

Under my proposals, there would be a fundamental difference between a marriage (civil or religious) and a civil partnership. The beginning of a marriage would represent the start of a new condition of life: a new legal status pertaining to the relationship between spouses; formally becoming part of a new family; taking on rights and responsibilities towards the marriage partner and his / her extended family. A civil partnership, on the other hand, would be primarily the way in which society recognised the existence of a relationship outside of marriage, and conferred certain rights and responsibilities upon the individuals involved that were not identical to, or as extensive as, those of a marriage.

2.0.2 Table illustrating the differences and similarities, under my proposals, between marriages (gay and straight) and registered partnerships:

Marriages	Partnerships
1) While the actual sexual relationship is not inherently expected to be permanent and exclusive, there is an expectation of a life-long emotional and practical commitment to the spouse and his / her family	1) Neither the sexual relationship nor the emotional / practical commitment are inherently expected to be life-long. However, a registered partnership is still a serious social and moral statement of intent to care for one's partner and his / her dependants
2) A marriage is deemed to establish a permanent relationship between the spouses and their respective families: one doesn't just marry a husband or wife but marries into their whole family	2) A registered partnership is not deemed to establish extended family relationships other than those of genetic relatedness or those recognised by social convention. For instance, one's gay son's registered partner is not formally one's son-in-law, as his husband would be; but one is of course entitled to call him such. The establishment of a partnership would, however, confer the status of 'next of kin' on one's partner, unless this was explicitly rejected by mutual consent
3) There is a formal and enforceable process for dissolving marriages and for ensuring that the legal obligations of care for one's spouse, which one entered into on marrying them, continue to be fulfilled (albeit in a modified form) after the marriage	3) There is no formally prescribed process for dissolving registered partnerships, although best-practice recommendations are made about counselling and reconciliation services that are available. The process for determining the partners' financial and practical obligations towards one another and their dependants after the partnership has ended (which clearly would need to be worked out in much more detail than is presented here) is much more streamlined, with fewer possibilities for arbitration and appeal
4) The rights, needs and justifiable expectations of each spouse and of dependants, particularly children, are all given equal consideration in the event of a divorce. There is no inherent presumption of guilt for the marriage break down, and no automatic linkage of blame for this to the divorce settlement. This would be carried out purely on a basis of need, proportionality and justice – to be determined on the merits of each case	4) The rights, needs and justifiable expectations of all involved are also taken into consideration in the event of a partnership break up. However, there are fewer safeguards in place to ensure an equitable settlement: i.e. there is nothing such as a 'Statement of Expectations and Intentions' (a recommended formal document for before and after a marriage) or pro nuptial agreement to set the parameters, unless the partners informally agree to one. Similarly, the arbitration and settlement process is much more rudimentary: there is more of a straightforward equation, for instance, along the lines of 'father pays maintenance, inflation-linked, of £ x in exchange for y amount of access to the children whose custody is awarded to the mother'. There would also be fewer resources and tools made available for enforcing such decisions, meaning that abuses would inevitably arise
5) The tax and benefits system would be used to the advantage of married couples, especially those with children, in order to provide an extra incentive for married persons to stay together. The UK Conservative Party's proposals on marriage, published today (9 July), are compatible with this suggestion.	5) The assistance provided to registered partners and their families by the tax and benefits system would be awarded on a strict basis of needs, e.g. in line with the government's policies on reducing child poverty. There would not be any additional premium or separate benefits / tax breaks as there would be for married couples.

2.0.3 Prioritising marriage but dignifying partnerships

The purpose of the benefits and tax measures outlined in point No. 5 in the table above would not be to privilege marriage unfairly over unmarried, registered partnerships. They are merely intended as an additional incentive for people to take the decision to get married and to stay married, given the immense social benefit to be gained from stable marriages and families. On the contrary, by creating an additional official legal status for unmarried partnerships, it would be intended to support and affirm these relationships and the important role they play within society and families.

It is often argued that giving unmarried partnerships a status equivalent or similar to that of marriage would only serve to undermine the institution of marriage. My proposals address this criticism by greatly reinforcing marriage; by giving it a new and clearly defined status within society and families; and by establishing stricter, enforceable rights and responsibilities for married and divorced persons.

Precisely because of this more rigorous marriage regime, there would be many couples who might otherwise have got married who would no longer be willing or able to marry, for one reason or another: problems with emotional commitment generally; fear or rejection of the obligations entailed; reluctance to consider themselves part of their spouse's family; family objections; etc. The new 'registered partnership' framework provides an alternative official recognition of such relationships; and it also provides a framework of civic law to support pre-existing relationships of this sort that have hitherto given rise to de facto legal loopholes whereby parents have been able to evade their financial and moral responsibilities for children, for instance, or inheritance and tax rights have not been recognised.