“Civil partnerships are heterophobic” – straight couple
November 12th, 2009
A heterosexual couple who don’t believe in the institution of marriage are fighting for the right to have a civil partnership.
Currently UK law states that only same-sex couples can register civil partnerships, and only opposite-sex couples can register marriages.
Katherine Doyle and Tom Freeman from London plan to challenge the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships by filing an application next week at Islington Registry Office.
“Marriage is patriarchal,” explained Ms Doyle. “The whole idea of dressing up in a big white dress and being given away by your father and taking your husband’s name is a bit old fashioned.
“Ideally we’d have the option of a civil partnership or a marriage, regardless of whether we were straight or gay,” added Mr Freeman.
“Effectively marriage and civil partnerships are exactly the same - it’s a duplicate law. The effects and legal processes are identical. The rights and obligations are identical. Civil partnerships are equality in all but name - so why not just have equality?
“The answer is there are conservative people who feel offended by having gay people in their precious institution. It’s quite an insulting compromise.”
“It’s an apartheid of sorts,” said Ms Doyle. “Getting married would condone that and the whole idea of common law partnerships is an urban myth - they don’t exist, so we are excluded from the legal benefits. For Tom and I a civil partnership is the obvious alternative but we can’t have it.”
“All loving couples should have access to the same institutions, regardless of sexuality. There should be parity of respect and rights.”
Marriage, while being a legal institution, has connections to religion. Therefore any good atheist would shun such a practice, therefore by not allowing them to get civil partnershipped and giving them the same rights as homosexual couples, religious heterosexual couples, and hypocritical atheist couples, their human rights are being violated. It’s a great piece of campaigning.
Tom Adams ∼ November 12th, 2009 11:36 pmI understand it as far as the “all loving couples should have access to the same institutions” goes. But ultimately I don’t see the problem here.
This article states that the law is an exact duplicate concerning marriage and civil partnerships. In that case criticising marriage would be criticising civil partnership as well.
If you don’t want the “dressing up in a big white dress and being given away by your father” then don’t. This is purely a religious way of doing it, by law you can just show up in your slacks at city hall and register your marriage, right?
Can someone explain me the problem with marriage that does not affect one with a civil partnership?
In the end this is just a discussion about semantics. We want both versions to be one law, under one name.
Martijn ∼ November 13th, 2009 5:38 pmMartijn,
It’s not just to do with semantics - although that is part of the problem. You really have to question the motivation behind giving gay couples ‘civil partnerships’ instead of the traditional practice of ‘Marriage’. At its simplest, it implies that gay people are still not seen to be fit to receive what heterosexual people get. A different name implies a second class union for second class citizens. Whether this is pandering to the religious right is insignificant - civil law should never be governed by or influenced by religion. And religion certainly should not be invoked to deny any social group the rights of the majority.
Aside from Semantics, Katherine Doyle and Tom Freeman have a respectable and legitimate reason for their campaign. The institution has always been(and still is) a mysogynistic practice. It is steeped in sexism and religious connections, but it is their only option as straight people. In this way, the marriage/partnership divide is both heterophobic and homophobic.
Bexb ∼ November 13th, 2009 7:42 pmMy partner and I are in a heterosexual relationship, but we are both bisexual. It seems contradictory to our passions for LGBT concerns, to have a marriage.
I still don’t understand how marriage can be seen without the religious connotations, yet isn’t open to couples of all gender combos. I think Tom (1st comment) has made a very good point. We’re all losing out because of the segregation. It’s a matter of religion as well as LGBT rights.
Sophie ∼ November 13th, 2009 8:02 pmThe religious connotations to marriage are a relatively recent phenomenon, as is the idea that it is about romantic love. Marriage used to exist solely amongst the upper classes for the preservation of wealth and status and was seen as a legal contract. The working classes rarely bothered at all historically. Heterosexual and homosexual couples should have the right to participate in either institution, dependent on what their personal views on marriage are. Many straight couples who have cohabited for many years choose to get married purely for the legal protections it affords. Surely many of them would have preferred a Civil Partnership?
Angie ∼ November 13th, 2009 8:08 pmWeddings can be religious sacraments or secular ceremonies, the former not always involving a formal legal contract, and the latter most usually doing so.
Most people couldn’t afford either until recently, and it was not until… the 1820s(?) that a wedding ceremony in the Church of England counted as a marriage contract.
Surely what we’re talking about here is the legal contract of marriage? This has been available to male-female partners without the trappings of religion for quite a long time now. I have never heard ANYONE claim that a registry office marriage without any religious ado is not a marriage.
Marriage and civil partnerships are NOT legally equal. Your civil partnership will not be recognised legally outside the UK, or for the purposes of immigration, in the way marriage is.
I admit it: I am baffled by the argument that weddings are always misogynistic religious ceremonies in which women wear white dresses, are given away by their fathers, and end with women taking their male partners’ surnames. Marriage law has changed drastically over the past centuries and decades, and is one of the most changeable legal institutions around. This couple are clearly after the legal contract here - apparently preferring one with fewer rights when travelling abroad, for some reason - and they’re explicitly fine with the legal contract of marriage. It’s the they associate with it that they don’t want. Here’s an idea: Why not do what thousands of British couples have done for decades - even centuries - and have an entirely secular ceremony? You are not legally obliged to have the wedding your mother wants, and never have been. I reiterate: Since the formulation of what we now recognise as a legal system in Britain, religion has always been an entirely optional component, but the legal contract has not. You can have a religious ceremony, but it is NOT legally binding without signing the appropriate paper in front of the appropriate official, with the appropriate witnesses.
I highly recommend reading some good social history surrounding weddings, the legal contract of marriage, and the social norms regarding it.
K ∼ November 14th, 2009 6:05 pmWhat an interesting discussion. That was enlightening and challenged my own thinking around the instution of marriage and religion and patriarchy and legality. Great stuff.
meagain ∼ November 19th, 2009 9:02 pmFrankly I don’t know why any woman would want to participate in such a patriarchal institution as marriage. In all culture in all times it about male control: of female reproduction & property.
The ancient Romans ( a wise bunch) had a form of marriage which consisted of cohabitation; when you left the home for your own place -that was divorce. For either sex.
Needless to say by the end of the Empire it was the most popular form of marriage.
rory ∼ November 21st, 2009 6:20 am