Civil Partnership Act

[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'?

[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?

I don't think!

You muppet(s)

[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?