|
 |
 |
 Friday, December 23, 2005
AGAINST UK CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT: Tom Utley
... I cannot think of any other Act passed by this Government that has given so much pleasure, at so little cost, to so many people. ...But the Civil Partnership Act (CPA) has caused very little distress to anybody apart from a few religious fanatics--and even they get a warm, righteous glow from their distress. ... Now I am going to spoil it all, and risk being frozen out again by Desmond, by repeating my belief that the CPA is an utter nonsense, in the most literal sense of the word, and that gay marriage can only ever be a ludicrous parody of the real thing. Sexual intercourse has three functions: to make babies, to give physical pleasure and to give us a means of expressing our affection for each other. Only that first purpose should concern the state. The other two are no more the Government's business than Sir Elton's bedroom practices are any business of mine. Every time I think of the Civil Partnership Act, I think of my two sisters--one of them a single mother--who have shared a house for most of their lives and bring up my niece together. They are expressly forbidden by the CPA from forming a civil partnership, for two reasons: (i) they are siblings; and (ii) they have not the slightest sexual interest in each other. If Sir Elton dies before his partner, Mr Furnish may now inherit all his property, free of inheritance tax--and all because they fancy the pants off each other. When one of my sisters dies, the other will almost certainly have to sell their house to pay the tax bill. Where is the justice in that--and how does it serve the interests of the state? The state has an obvious interest in keeping parents together. The evidence is now overwhelming that stable marriages offer the best conditions for bringing up the children that this kingdom so desperately needs. But I cannot see what possible difference it will make to the well-being of society whether Sir Elton and his partner stay together or not. The sentimentalist in me rejoices at Sir Elton's happiness. The dyed-in-the-wool bigot says that I will never approve wholly of civil partnerships until inheritance tax is abolished for everyone--including my sisters. more [MD.com readers are discussing similar issues here. --Eve] 
 VOTE
|
||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
Tom Utley writes: Every time I think of the Civil Partnership Act, I think of my two sisters--one of them a single mother--who have shared a house for most of their lives and bring up my niece together. They are expressly forbidden by the CPA from forming a civil partnership, for two reasons: (i) they are siblings; and (ii) they have not the slightest sexual interest in each other.
Oddly enough, Tom doesn't mention thinking of a mother who lives with her son, or a father who lives with his daughter, who are expressly forbidden from marrying. Presumably this is because this is such an ancient injustice to him that he's raved about it so often in the past, how unfair it is that a mother and son who live together aren't allowed to marry! Or not?
I'm in the US and don't know if you folks ever saw the sitcom called "Kate and Allie" from the 1980s. It was two divorced women who had bought a house together and were helping each other out financially and raising children. No implication of being lesbians. As a divorce lawyer I saw a client work out something like with a friend that helped both of them.
Instead of requiring a sexual relationship for a civil partnership, it should be any folks who are financially dependent on each other. If something would happen to one of them the other would have a financial loss or would lose on a shared investment, etc.
This could include the examples given. Leave marriage to those wanting and eligible for marriage in the classic sense of the word.
Anonymous: don't know if you folks ever saw the sitcom called "Kate and Allie" from the 1980s. It was two divorced women who had bought a house together and were helping each other out financially and raising children. No implication of being lesbians.
Lesbian fans of the series would disagree... ;-)
Leave marriage to those wanting and eligible for marriage in the classic sense of the word.
So long as that includes same-sex couples, I have no problem with that. Marriage for same-sex and mixed-sex couples, and some form of samenleving contract (as exists in the Netherlands) for people who cannot get married because they're too closely related, or otherwise ineligible.
Tom Utley's complaint about his sisters not being allowed to register a civil partnership makes sense only if he was also complaining he wasn't allowed to marry either of his sisters. Marriage in the UK is for mixed-sex couples: civil partnership is effectively and is intended to be marriage for same-sex couples.
Tom may feel there should be some relationship other than marriage that his sisters could have: and if enough people perceive the need, no doubt eventually there would be one.
Post a Comment
<< Home