Talk:Civil partnership in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

message: I've just copyedited the chunk of legalese under "Law and procedure under the Civil Partnership Act". The text originally appeared in this diff, added by an anonymous editor. The original text looks like it was cut-and-pasted from somewhere else; it even includes entitites for curly quotes (eg ‘). Why do I get the feeling that this is a copyvio? It reads like a lawyer's summary of the bill, which was already an act by the time the text was added - making me even more suspicious. I haven't been able to find a source for the text, however. Comments? -- Avaragado 22:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that you have a point, even though Google & Yahoo only find the Wikipedia article.  I suppose using the code for curly braces isn't knock-down proof (I use codes all the time, partly because I write my own HTML code for my Web site, and it's second nature). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: According to clause 50 of the CPB, a civil partnership is voidable if any of the following is shown:... 
'applicant was pregnant by someone other than the respondent at the time of its formation;'''
Is that true?   Since only same-sex couples are allowed to enter civil partnerships it'd be impossible for the applicant to be pregnangt by the respondant!  (Alphaboi867 4 July 2005 21:59 (UTC))
:I've just checked the Act and the clause is there. So it's true in that sense. We could be charitable and assume this is very forward-thinking legislation... Perhaps the clause was included in case the law is later amended to allow mixed-sex civil partnerships. -- Avaragado 5 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)
::I read that too: what about gender realignment cases?  Socially, doesn't seem likely, but technically possible.  Personally, I like to think of it as evidence that they did a fair-minded cut'n'paste job on the Marriage Act.
::: Surely it applies mostly to bisexual people. There are a lot of us about. 213.86.59.92 12:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Civil partnerships are available to opposite-sex couples. . Also, this appears to mean that a lesbian rape victim cannot enter a civil partnership (or marriage) until after the pregnancy? Is this true? --Aaron McDaid 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, civil partnerships are available to 2 staight ment or 2 straight women.    Both parties must be of the same-sex to enter a partnership, but consumation is not required. (Alphaboi867 18:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have an authoritative reference that verifies that? The article I linked to is written by a lawyer and says that opposite-sex couples are eligible to, and I'm inclined to believe that. --Aaron McDaid 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doh! I was wrong . It seems I have a few edits to undo! Aaron McDaid 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pregnancy? 

message: Shouldn't this article now be renamed Civil partnership (United Kingdom)? --rossb 22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, but to Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom to keep in consistent with other pages Maccoinnich 14:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change? 

message: BBC News website refers to the first couple as Matthew Roche & Christopher Cramp, not Clamp, so I'm editing this page to bring it in line SP-KP 19:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First couple (name amendment) 

message: According to the text of the act , it seems that in Scotland a father and son, (or mother and daughter, or 2 siblings), can marry if over 21 years old and they have never lived as father and son. The eligibility rules seem to be different in Scotland and also in Northern Ireland. I must admit I find the text quite confusing, and have probably got it wrong. --Aaron McDaid 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  father and son registering a partnership in Scotland? 

message: The following graph was recently added to the article:
Known Problems with having or forming a Civil Partnership
If you live together with someone who is yout partner, and the work and you become unemployed (In the UK) you will not be able to claim Benefit, its been proven, as the goventment say that if your partner works and earns a certain ammount they they are responsible for keeping you.''
Is this really a "problem"?  I'm assuming this is the same situation that an unemployed married person would find themselves in.  While this info should probably be in the article somewhere, calling it a "problem" seems POV -- if it's a problem it's a problem with all of UK family law, not just with civil partnerships. --Jfruh 03:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really a problem? 

message: Why not produce, as a counter-balance, evidence that other equally prominent persons approve of Civil Partnerships?  --GuillaumeTell 00:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition 

message: The law does not specify that the registrants are in a relationship of any particular kind, least of all are a "same-sex couple", which implies a homosexual relationship. This is an NPOV statement.
A marriage is can be automatically annulled - considered invalid, on the grounds of non-consummation. Such marriages are considered "marriages of convenience". No such stipulation exists for CPs. This is an essential distinction from marriage.
The most articulate and comprenhensive opposition to CPs came from the RC church - it is ridiculous to exlude a summary of the opposition and the arguments from an NPOV article on CPs.
:First off, please add new content to talk pages at the bottom of the page (where I've moved this discussion).  Also, please finish your additions to the talk pages by signing them.  You can do this by adding two dashes and then four tildes (~) at the end of your contribution.  This indicates what user or IP address has made the addition and adds a time stamp, which makes the discussion easier to follow.
:Second of all, the article says very explictly:
:"...although both non-consummation and adultery can be grounds for dissolution of the partnership as they fall under the provision for unreasonable behavior."
:In other words, a civil partnership that is not founded on an actual relationship can be dissolved on those grounds, just like a marrige is.  You say a marraige can be "automatically" annulled on grounds of nonconsummation, but it isn't really "automatic" -- one of the spouses has to formally file a complaint in law, just as a civil partner would have to do in order to dissolve a partnership.  
:: A civil partnership founded purely on pragmatic, financial grounds, for whatever the reasons the registrants chose, be they friends, strangers or whatever, could only be dissolved if a court decided that either partner had behaved "unreasonably". That may, or may not include the failure to perform homosexual acts, it certainly would not be grounds if the partnership was for purely financial purposes. The law does not recognise such a thing as homosexual "consummation", as clearly such a thing does not exist, furthermore it is improbable that any court in its right mind (certainly not one to date) would penalise someone for failing to commit a homosexual act.
:: It is simply factually incorrect and misleading to imply that "same sex couples" are the only people who may enter into CPs.
:I didn't mean to revert the addition of the Catholic Church's statement ... will re-add that.  --Jfruh 19:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  82.70.132.246: Seems you don't know there's a difference between 'the law' and the Act?  Jfruh: The RC Church's statement has been removed: there's a link to it, quoting it at length is redundant.  We need to be careful here: we could just end up with a load of POV statements from both sides, which isn't really useful. Csm1701 11:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Law

message: Anyone agree that Section 2 re Gender Recognition Act should be moved from Sec 2 into to something like Section 1.4?  It's a well-written and informative paragraph (I've read the Act several times, but hadn't noticed this info before) but seems a but stuck out on it's own at the moment.  Csm1701 11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Recognition Act 

message: To whom it may concern, the first sentence of this article was under discussion at the meduiation cabal by 2 users. Unfortunately one user pulled out and the talks ended. As a result i felt that the first sentence should be reverted to it's original form. If you wish to query or argue against that please do so here - please do not RV again so as to stop another edit war. Thank you --  talk</sup></font> 11:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I haven't pulled out -it's simply that I have to work for a living and cannot attend WikiPedia 24/7 Ros Power 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No sorry I was reffering to Chris, please refer to the mediation discussion for reasons. --  talk</sup></font> 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: :This can have serious consequences for a married couple who wish to stay together after one or the other has changed gender. However under special provisions of the Civil Partnership Act they will be able from December to dissolve their marriage, and enter a civil partnership the next day
Am I right that this means there is a time period between the disolution and the new civil partnership? So for example, if a transexual person changes their legal gender and dissolved an existing marriage and then one of the partners is killed or whatever they won't be be in a partnership?
::When I added the above (pretty sure it was me, forgot to sign), I thought it was more of a theoretical question since it would be unlikely to arise. However since I assume the dissolution will happen around the time of the operation, it may in fact be not such a theoretical question. So does anyone know the answer? Nil Einne 18:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transsexuals 

message: I have taken this from the civil unions main article concerning UK
:Both same-sex marriages and civil unions of other nations will be automatically considered civil partnerships under UK law. This means that, in some cases, non-Britons from nations with civil unions will have more rights in the UK than in their native countries. For example, a Vermont civil union would have legal standing in the UK, however in cases where one partner was American and the other British, the Vermont civil union would not provide the Briton with right of abode in Vermont (or any other US state or territory), whereas it would provide the American with right of abode in the UK.
I assume this means same-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions? Since opposite sex civil parnerships don't exist presemuably an opposite sex civil union won't be recognised as a civil partnership. Will an opposite sex civil union automatically be considered a marriage?
Also as I said this was taken from the civil union article under UK. This does not seem to be mentioned here in this article but it should be... Nil Einne 20:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 certain "overseas relationships" between same sex couples are considered to be Civil Partnerships under UK law . Relationships between opposite sex couples are specifically excluded from the definition of "Civil Partnership" whether they are from the UK or elsewhere. I am unsure whether there is another UK law that would recognise "Civil" opposite sex relationships that have been legalised in other countries. As a slightly separate point, I suspect that some marriages that can be carried out in foreign countries are not legally recognised in the UK (especially if the participants were under age by UK law at the time of the ceremony) - I still need to verify that suspicion though. Road Wizard 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other countries 

message: There is no requirement that either party must change their surname upon entering a civil partnership. Does this mean that British law does require one partner to change their surname in a marriage? Nik42 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  That is merely a custom, and a diminishing one.  To my knowledge, it was never a legal requirement in Britain or the Commonwealth countries.  JackofOz 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: uh klate in the game I know but I believe legally a married women is known by both names. EG: Miss Fiona Potts marrying Mr Rummery would become Mrs Fiona Potts Rummery. :D Its archaic and dates back to the time when men were held in higher legal regard than women. In civil partnerships there is not such requirements. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname change 

message: When people enter into a Civil Partnership, it is not a "marriage" in precisely the same legal sense as a traditional marriage between people of the opposite sex.   Nevertheless, people commonly say, for example, that Elton John married David Furnish.  I doubt this usage will change, since it's much more meaningful to say that than to say they "registered with each other", or whatever.   Wikipedia is sticking to the facts and using the "registration" terminology.   How do we ensure this is applied consistently?  For example, Darren Hayes is said to have "married" his boyfriend by entering into a Civil Partnership with him.  Should this be changed, or should it stay there, to reflect the way people in general talk and think about these arrangements?  JackofOz 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have noticed this tendency, especially in the British press, with the American press apparently content to follow the lead.  (I don't think you would ever see an American newspaper, no matter how liberal its reputation, referring to a couple entering into a domestic partnership or civil union as getting "married".)  The difference may be related to a greater acceptance of same-sex relationships in the UK, though it also may just be a matter of ease of writing: there's no easy verb equivalent to "marrying" (a friend of mine who did it in Vermont said tongue-in-cheek that she "got unionized.")  I think to keep things accurate we ought to use the "partnership" terminology.  We definitely shouldn't use "marry" in scare quotes, as that has all sorts of implicit POV judgement calls that we should steer clear of.  My two cents (er, sorry, UK article, I mean two pence), anyway. --Jfruh (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hayes himself uses the term married on his website, which sort of complicates matters. --GuillaumeTell 18:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: I have been asked by a few people to pass by and give some sort of verdict on the medcab case. Sorry it has taken so long. Ill try and keep this short and sweet :D
The discussion threw up basically a single issue - that the words same-sex couples implied a consummated physical relationship was required to enter into a civil partnership. Ros Power says that this is not the case and that the Act only outlines what relationship is NOT allowed before entering into a partnership. Chris (CMS1701) argued that the words same-sex couples was used in literature published by the govt alongside the act.
I have to say Chris' argument was the most swaying. I see Ros Power's point and agree that it could be misconstrued if that was how it was presented in the article . However we need to consider the phrase in context. It is in the introduction to the article and as such can be seen in more general terms. The chances of misconstruing the definition / guideline is fairly low. Also Same-sex couples reads better than many other suggested alternatives.
Ultimately though Chris' point that official documentation used the phrase swayed my viewpoint (I did initially favour Ros power I have to admit). If the official papers can use the words same-sex couple then the lead to the Wiki article can as well - as far as I can see it is not misleading :D. 
I know this is a highly sensitive subject for some people. I feel the big problem for Ros was the word couple so I proposed an alternative that might appease both parties: same-sex partners. I don't know what people opinion on that.
I also have noticed some attempts to make this article 'gender neutral'. Although WP has no policy on gender neutrality the major consensus is that we do not abide to it UNLESS there are extreme grounds. Gender neutrality has been a big problem on Wikipedia recently and has caused problems with articles being moved to versions that are grammatically incorrect (tradesman to tradesperson for example). We use correct English (or American English) spellings and grammar on WP, gender neutrality is not recognised by those languages (it is in fact a colloquialism). In the case of the OED it is explicitly noted as not being used in the language :D
I hope these points help make my position and the position of the medcab clear in this. Any queries ask at my talk page as I have 1000+ pages on my watchlist and sometimes miss article talk page posts... thanks --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "same sex couple" is indeed used by some government departments. But in fact the only truly official document WRT to the CP Act is, in fact the CP Act itself. And it is clear from the CP act that CPs are not limited to "same sex couples". I have asked the DTI why they use this term, and they tell me (and I quote) "that civil partnership is primarily of interest to gay(sic) couples". That does not mean that they are limited, legally or otherwise, to pairs of practising homosexuals. Ros Power 14:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sure I speak for the majority of editors when I thank you for clarifying your position, and that of the Medcab.  Your suggestion re the ude of the word 'partners' is interesting, but perhaps less than ideal as the term could easily be confused with Civil Partners once they have formed their Civil Partnership.  But, as you say, if the official blurb uses 'couples' then it's acceptable here.  Again, thank you for your time and effort.  83.217.190.69 09:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation answers 

message: I hope this isn't too controversial: I have removed the Notable Partnerships section.  IMHO it's not encyclopaedic, more like something culled from Hello! magazine.  Also, the list is likely to get ludicrously long as time passes.  Trance or Daze? 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Partnerships 

message: I am a little puzzled by the inclusion of the Opposition subsection.
It quotes three examples of opposition, and I list my response.
*1 - a few protests by a Northern Ireland Church.  These were very minor, localised and stopped almost as soon as they began.
*2 - The Scottish council that declared that no officer would be forced into conducting a ceremony.  Again, very local, in the real world nobody declined to form a partneship and the 'ban' was lifted months ago.
*3 - The RC Church's condemnation.  This is related to the Act itself and should be linked to there, if at all.  (The RC Church objects to much, but not all their declarations appear on related articles.)
I have no doubt that there was some objection (somebody somewhere is always objecting to something) but this section seems to give undue weight to objections that are/were a) not relevant to the CP process itself, b) were so minor and short-lived as to have barely registered, c) relate to the decision of one council that had no real-world effect and which was dropped shortly thereafter.
It also occurs to me that the 'opposition' was absolutely dwarfed by the positive comments made by so many and yet this section doesn't cover this at all.  Very unbalanced.
Thoughts?  It strikes me as a pointless use of server space and unless anyone can give decent reasons for keeping it, I suggest it goes in the bin. Trance or Daze? 17:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition - why is this included? 

message: The Difference Between Marriage and CP section claimed that marriages are legally formed at the point where whoever is conducting the marriage speaks the words "I now pronounce you man and wife."  Totally untrue!  
As per the Wedding Guide UK web site (a very useful reference for all things marriage related, consulted it often myself) "The bride and groom are required to sign the register to make the marriage legal."
The differences between marriage and a CP seem so slight as to hardly warrant the section, however I suppose it actually serves to highlight the similarities rather than the differences.
Joel
: Indeed.  Related is the word 'virtually' in the article's opening sentence when discussing legal rights are responsibilities and comparing these to marriage. There are not LEGAL differences, as evidenced by the main body of the article and, indeed, the link contained within the sentence itself.  This is sloppy writing and misleading.  Any differences between Civil Partnerships and civil marriage are trivila to the point of being barely worthy of comment, however they may as well get a mention.  The LEGAL differences in terms of rights and responsibilities are nil (the Act was written exactly so that shuld be the case) and this first sentence needs a rewrite.  81.159.16.124 09:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences.