Civil Partnership Act

[D-IFF_ident]

Well somebody had to bring it up...

The Civil Partnership Act comes into force on 5 Dec 2005, details of the Act can be found here:

http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/civilpartnership/

The Act gives legal recognition for sam-sex couples who enter into a relationship that they 'register'. Registered partners can then claim all the benefits that married people get; pensions, Death-In-Service Benefits, LSSA, SFA, all the things you'd expect. However, heterosexual couples will still not be recognized by the forces, unless the 2 people are married.

So here's my point; Let's say that I'm one of the many thousands of heterosexual couples who don't go through the marriage service, but I live with my partner for a long time, have kids together, buy a house together etc, you could call it a common law marriage; am I being discriminated against? Because same-sex couples, who are not married, will be given more rights than different sex couples, who are not married.

Just doesn't quite seem right to me.

[serf]

You're absolutely right, you are being discriminated against.

It is shocking.

[Foxthreekill]

D-iff ident Not being from your part of the world, I could be wrong but.... Why can't you simply "register" at a "Registry" Office i.e. a civil marriage, which is pretty much what your civil partnership act seems to be. I can't see any discrimination.

[serf]

The MOD paper makes it clear that the benefits are only for SAME SEX partnerships - thats the discrimination!

[Foxthreekill]

Yes. Benefits which would be available to you if you legally registered your relationship too.

[MarkD]

D-IFFident - since you ask the question:

You are only being discriminated if you consider that gay people in civil partnerships are only "shacking up" like unmarried heteros.

Since gay folk are not being dragooned down the registry office to get CPed we can safely assume some will still shack up.

Thus their choosing to register is formalising their relationship in the same way as married heteros. Thus no discrimination since they retain the same option as you - no registration, no benefits.

Over here we have gay marriage which makes it easier to figure it out without artificial constructs to puzzle out. It did take the courts to manage that. However, with a Prime Minister whose answer to the question "did you ever do drugs" was similar to Adam's answer to the question "did you eat the apple" (the wife yer honour, she tricked me) we can hardly expect a legislative answer to any tricky question.

[Heliport]

"gay marriage"

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Partnership, agreement, arrangement, commitment certainly, but homosexual "marriage"? :confused:

Maybe the meaning of yet another ordinary English word is about to be changed.

[D-IFF_ident]

I'm married myself, to a woman even. But, if I wasn't married, and not the marrying kind, like I didn't believe in the act, which is religious in origin, then there would be nothing to stop me registering my best mate as my 'Civil Partner'. Then I can claim allowances, we can have a quarter (families' quarter, not married quarter) and we don't have to be gay. Just like the homosexual folk who have been in the forces over the many years pre-enlightenment, who all had to pretend not to be gay, we can pretend we are. Hey, we could be Bi - then we can have women-folk round to stay in our families' quarter, that could be fun.

I'm not suggesting that homosexual folk should not be entitled to all us boring straight people, but we should have similar rights to them. Why can't I register someone of the opposite sex under the Civil Partnership Act?

Right, I'm off to watch the MOBOs...

[PPRuNeUser0211]

ident,

I see your point with this, and, having been at the wrong end of the (hetero) un-registered partner gig for a few years, it does kinda suck! But, tbh, all things aside, surely this "civil partnership" thing is just the same as getting married in a registry office? I mean, you go to some civil servant's humble abode, (no religion (sp? too early!) involved necessarily, and then you come out as a "registered" couple? Not sure you can call it discrimintation if you have the same option to register your relationship and decline it?

Fully agree with your idea of registering with a mate though! Especially if you were to find yourself stuck in one of her majesty's finer messes..... like, hmm, the brize transit wing? Great fun, although I noticed whilst visiting the other week that my old room in the mess is now occupied by an AC mover! In fact, would be an excellent way of getting yourself some more room in places that don't have enough suites etc.... Not that I need it anymore, so can't complain...

PS as an aside, anyone ever known any couples that chose to live in the mess? Sure I remember meeting a couple a few years back who were fairly newley wed and decided they didn't fancy a whole house, so they just got a suite in the mess between the two of them! Seemed to have a great laugh, and they didn't have to cook (definite fringe benefit in some messes/with some women!)

[Bluntend]

If it's discrimination that's the big issue here, I agree with those who have posted earlier that registration for same-sex couples under the civil-partnership arrangement is the same as registration in a registry office for straight couples. The fact of the matter is that same-sex couples cannot get 'Married' in the UK, hence a civil option has been made available to those who want it.

I am sure that not every same-sex couple will want to take on the responsibilities and ties that come with a civil partnership for the same reasons that many straight couples don't necessarily want to get married. Now though, for both the options are on the table.

If, however, you and your best mate want to become a registered same-sex couple and shack up together in a quarter, fair play to you. At the end of the day though, who really cares?:confused:

I'm afraid that I've never been able to understand why an unmarried couple who have children together, a house together, a joint mortgage and a dog (for example) choose not to go through a civil registry office ceremony at the very least - surely there are financial and social benefits? Or maybe its the committment that's the big worry. But surely having kids is the biggest committment a couple can make? Just a thought...:ok:

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

The new rules obviously favour the same sex relationships, but reveal oversights, gaps and loopholes to make the hetero's feel worse off.

There are two examples that I know of going on at Lyneham

One of my mates' bird (a servicewoman) has two sprogs from a previous, and is up the duff with his. She has a MQ but he is not permitted to live there - and therefore has to pay for a room in the block.

Ironically, he will be permitted to take paternity leave, but have to sit in the block (in theory)

My mate is no fool and will be taking this crazy situation all the way til he gets a result.

Another mate is in a similar situation (but without all the sprog complications) and just shrugs his shoulders, worse off financially.


My observation about the Civil Partnership Act - Will there be an equal & opposite de-registration ceremony, complete with de-registration lawyers, division of assets and access agreements for adopted kids? (with CSA involvement)

[Bluntend]

Will there be an equal & opposite de-registration ceremony, complete with de-registration lawyers, division of assets and access agreements for adopted kids? (with CSA involvement)

What do you think? As if the lawyers that drew up the Act in the first place would miss the opportunity to line their pockets when things for 'Bob and Barry' hit the rocks... ;)

[vecvechookattack]

why is this thread on Pprune?????

Where is the Military aviation link here?

[Cambridge Crash]

If a registered (ie same-sex) partnership breaks down, the relationship must be disolved through the courts, in a manner akin to a divorce.

VVHA - you may be interested that this is a matter that is, I understand, affecting a number of service personnel, including aircrew. The rules are non-discriminatory - they allow recognition of a formal relationship, whether it be hetero- or homosexual. Moreover, it bring the Services in line with other government departments, although the Foreign and Commonwealth Office recognises relationships of an 'enduring nature' and will provide accommodation and allowances at overseas posts, as well as providing diplomatic passposrts for partners. The FCO, however, cannot guaranatee that diplomatic status is granted by the receiving State to the unmarried partner. Same applies to Service personnel who are 'diplomatic agents' - Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (to which the UK is party) does recognise the role of unmarried hostesses (yes, plural) accompanying a diplomat.

CC

[southside]

this is a matter that is, I understand, affecting a number of service personnel, including aircrew.

No it doesn't. Get rid of this waste of a forum and lets discuss something more interesting.

[tablet_eraser]

Not all of the posts on here have a whole lot to do with military aviation. In this case we're talking about an issue that DOES affect RAF personnel, so I think it's quite okay.

I can see why people would get bothered about this if they don't look too closely at the facts. Surely it's another example of how gay personnel are being treated better than straight personnel as part of a PC crusade?

Nonsense.

The Civil Partnership provides the opportunity for gay people to formalise their relationship in the same way as straight couples do in a registry office. It is devoid of religious significance because the CofE is tying itself in knots about the issue. It is NOT "gay marriage", which has religious connotations, for that very reason. Upon registering a civil partnership the couple achieve next of kin status, thus avoiding the horrible situations in the past where families refused to allow their relative's partner to visit him/her in hospital. The couple also receives tax allowances similar to those given to married couples, along with other equalising benefits. Dissolution of a civil partnership runs in much the same way as a divorce, although it is viewed more as a termination of a (very complex and involved) civil contract.

I fail to see what is wrong with allowing a devoted and commited couple, of whatever orientation, the right to quarters once they have taken the necessary steps to register their relationship as a marriage or a civil partnership. A homosexual couple has no such entitlement without a civil partnership, neither does an unmarried straight couple. If you want the benefits, sign the register. Simple as that.

[An Teallach]

Good post, Tablet. Trolls, the title of this thread accurately depicts the subject of it. If you have no interest in the subject, don't click on it. Hardly rocket science, is it? You have our permission to bu@@er off!

There are plenty of gay and unmarried straight mil aviation personnel with partners who may well be interested in how the CPA may affect their entitlement to benefits such as Service housing and allowances. 900 or so have been interested enough to read the thread so far.

[Bluntend]

why is this thread on Pprune????? Where is the Military aviation link here?

VVCA

There is more to Military Aviation than flying alone because as a Flt, Sqn or even Stn Cdr you have to deal with personnel issues pretty much every day. The introduction of Civil Partnerships is a big issue if you have to deal with it directly or alternatively, if you are one of the many servicemen or women to whom it may apply.

If you're not interested, fine, but as has been pointed out earlier there have been over 900 views of this thread for one reason or another, therefore the interest is obviously out there.

[vecvechookattack]

Absolute rubbish. Now this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4437512.stm) is much more important.

[Cambridge Crash]

Ahh - now we get to the root of the issue. Your inhibitions, shall we say, are dropped as a result of alcohol. Presumably an issue during a DV interview?

[Maple 01]

See? vecvechookattack's link is just another reason why the Tories should never be given another chance........













;)

[An Teallach]

<paxo>Yeeees, Maple01<\paxo>

Perhaps we have another member for 16 Blades and Flap62's 'Worshipful Company of 8 Pinters'? :E

[Maple 01]

Oh I don't mind who shacks up with who, but take away my right to booze all day? Never!

(just because I married a Methordist and never even get the chance of a light ale .....)

[proud2serve]

Southside
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is a matter that is, I understand, affecting a number of service personnel, including aircrew.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it doesn't. Get rid of this waste of a forum and lets discuss something more interesting.
Er, computer says .. yes it does! How can you say that this will not affect aircrew and the essential majority on the ground? We are, southside, potentially 5 weeks away from the first same-sex couples moving into Service Families Accommodation. That should get the net curtains twitching all over the patch. See any problems with that? Afraid there won't be space amongst the Serving for problems as in the eyes of your employer this is LAW and we are to get on with it.

This is about equal rights for serving personnel and their families. The Civil Partnership Act and its implementation in military law says that I will constitute a family (PersStat 1 or whatever JPA is calling the new Married Cat 1) when I 'tie the knot' with my partner. If you consider this as discrimination - because opposite-sex couples who have the avenue of marriage open and refuse to take it are refused access to the same benefits and commitments - then perhaps you would support the campaign for marriage to be open to same-sex couples as well? Then we could legitimately deny Civil Partners those benefits that unmarried couples are currently denied.

I'd say that that does affect a couple of service personnel. Any offers?

[raf_wannabe]

vecvechookattack,

I am curently a member of a UAS, am applying to OASC to be a pilot and also happen to be gay. I look to sites like PPRuNe as a guide as to what I can expect if and when I join up.

So, as someone who is not 100% aware of this new civil partnership deal and who also values the views of currently serving RAF pilots (FAA & AAC too) discussions like this are like gold dust to me. I am very grateful, therefore, that this thread was started.

[The Rocket]

Surely I can't be the only one who has noticed that Vecvec..etc..etc..etc has reappeared magically, and two posts later Southside makes exactly the same statement about this thread being irrelevant, after not one other person has complained?

Coincidence? :confused:

I don't think!:hmm:

You muppet(s) :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[RileyDove]

Proudtoserve - I think the case is that there are opposite sex couples who do not wish to marry for whatever reason. The fact that they refuse to marry is irrelevant - the same rules that apply to the Civil Partnership Act should also be applicable to opposite sex partnerships. This is not a case of wanting to legitimise marriage for yourself - rather a case that couples of whatever sex might not neccessarily wish to get married.Why should we be in position where we are discriminating against unmarried opposite sex couples by not allowing them into AMQ's but allowing through an act of parliament the right to same sex couples.
I am not against partnerships - I thought the problem of
opposite sex unmarried couples needing accomodation had been resolved years ago.

[An Teallach]

RileyDove

And there's the rub! Civil Partnerships are civil (registry office) marriages in all but name. They are only not called marriages as a sop to the god-botherers. Straight couples are not being discriminated against:

hitched gay couple = civil partnership.
hitched straight couple = marriage.
unhitched gay couple = 2 guys or 2 gals.
unhitched straight couple = a guy and a gal.

Where's the discrimination? It'll all end up with "Which one of us gets the Dire Straits CDs?" anyway! ;)

[RileyDove]

An - maybe then we should offer the 'decaffinated' civil ceremony
to straight partnerships . Bottom line is plenty of people arn't into the religious side of it all - the civil side has a little -maybe time
for 'no-god' Vegas style while u you wait!

[MarkD]

RileyDove

there's already a "godless" ceremony for straight people - a registry office marriage. Ironically, by introducing a "separate but equal" registry office procedure for gays while retaining "civil marriage" for straights, it's not unlikely Cherie B will be asked to take an ECHR case. If HMG called all registry office ceremonies "civil partnerships" rather than just the gay ones it would save a LOT in future barrister fees... then marriage could be left as a religious matter.

[An Teallach]

SPHLC

One of my mates' bird (a servicewoman) has two sprogs from a previous, and is up the duff with his. She has a MQ but he is not permitted to live there - and therefore has to pay for a room in the block.
While the CPA may not assist your mate, his gay former colleagues may well have bequeathed some assistance to him.

I can think of no clearer a breach of both his and his partner's ECHR Article 8 right to respect for their private lives than the situation you describe above.

I would redress whichever bureaucratic busybody insisted he move into the block, mentioning the breach of his and his partner's ECHR Art. 8 rights, and demand a refund of accommodation charges.

While the Service may well have a case that some postings have a legitimate requirement to 'live-in', on a normal tour I can see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to live in his partner's FQ if she is happy for him to do so.

[Twonston Pickle]

One thing that does concern all those who may be entitled to MQs is "Where are the extra MQs coming from?" We already have a number of servicemen and women in SSFA and SSSA so this could (although I regonise it is law) have a significant impact on budgets and housing. Moreover, how is the prioritisation going to work, particularly overseas?