Civil Partnership Act
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Civil Partnership Act
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....ilpartnership/
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.
The Civil Partnership Act comes into force on 5 Dec 2005, details of the Act can be found here:
http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov....ilpartnership/
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere only we know
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"gay marriage"
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Partnership, agreement, arrangement, commitment certainly, but homosexual "marriage"?
Maybe the meaning of yet another ordinary English word is about to be changed.
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Partnership, agreement, arrangement, commitment certainly, but homosexual "marriage"?
Maybe the meaning of yet another ordinary English word is about to be changed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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!)
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!)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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...
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?
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...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPA 2004
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is a matter that is, I understand, affecting a number of service personnel, including aircrew.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why is this thread on Pprune????? Where is the Military aviation link here?
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.