Talk:Civil partnership in the United Kingdom

Copyvio?

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)

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)

I was the author of the original chunk of legalese. I am a law student and that was part of a practice essay I wrote. I am sorry that i did not do much formatting. Anyway, the essay was written when the civil partnership act was still a bill, so the article uses 'clause' instead of 'sections'. Nevertheless I am quite confident that the content of the ariticle is accurate because when i was writing the essay, the bill was just about to receive royal assent.

In short, there are no copyright issues here.

Pregnancy?

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)

Civil partnerships are available to opposite-sex couples. [1]. 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)

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))

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)

Doh! I was wrong [2]. It seems I have a few edits to undo! Aaron McDaid 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Name change?

Shouldn't this article now be renamed Civil partnership (United Kingdom)? --rossb 22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

I've made the change (having celebrated my own civil partnership on the 21st!) --rossb 05:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No it should not be merged. There is a clear differernce between Marriage and Civil Partnerships. 'Same Sex Marriage' is something many gay rights groups are still campaigning for. User:Spacepostman 17:15 GMT 23 December 2005

First couple (name amendment)

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)

Proposed merge

I believe that the Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom article should be merged into this article, for the following reasons:

1. There isn't really much of a debate about the difference between civil partnerships and marriage, apart from the name itself. The couple bringing the legal action on the other page may believe it's important, but I think that can perfectly well be covered in a section on this page.
2. Most people on either side of the debate admit that it is marriage in all but name.
3. The distinction between marriage and civil partnership/union isn't that useful in any case - Vermont may well have same-sex marriage, but as it is only recognised at a state, and not federal level, in reality it gives fewer rights than Britain's "lesser" option.
4. Mostly, the whole debate can be better covered on one page.

• As an aside, I agree with the above proposal that this page should be moved to civil partnerships.

Maccoinnich 14:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. The controversy surrounding the topics and suchforth can't really be seperated. Morwen - Talk 14:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your argument, but (unless you're proposing just to do this for the two UK-related pages, which I don't think is the case based on what you've said above), this talk page perhaps isn't the best place for the discussion; you either need to find somewhere where all editors interested in civil unions / same-sex marriages will see it, or if you do want to host the discussion here, place notices on all relevant pages pointing people here SP-KP 19:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm just talking about the two UK pages. I don't see anything in Maccoinnich's comment to indicate otherwise. Morwen - Talk 11:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Morwen is correct - I am just talking about the two UK pages. In other countries the situations and arguments are different, and I haven't suggested anything for them. I'm actually a little confused about what would make you think I am talking about anywhere else. Would you now support the merge then, just for the two UK pages? Maccoinnich 15:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Maccoinnich. Thanks for clarifying (your point 3 was what misled me — I thought you were saying that because, in places outside Britain where same-sex marriages exist, they may not be as equal as Britain's civil partnerships are, that the whole subject worldwide couldn't be neatly separated into two). As I said, I've no problem with the merge itself. SP-KP 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I support both the merge and the name change to "civil partnerships" in the title. Rd232 ^talk 20:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the name change, as marriage and civil partnerships remain different legislation and it is too soon to tell, at less than one month in, whether there will be a material difference between the two states. Dev0347 18:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that this page be renamed, but that the material in the page Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom should be cut and pasted into the this page - basically, the debate is best covered in one page, and this is where it should be covered. How do you feel about that? Maccoinnich 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would oppose the merger. Civil Partnership is one thing (now an established institution), the controversy about same-sex marriage is another. I think that to have the same-sex marriage question discussed at length in the same article as civil partnership would just confuse the readers, particularly those not particularly up to date with the situation in the UK.--rossb 22:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the merger as they are different issues. Civil partnerships are not gay marriages. Secretlondon 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merger as well. Although civil partnerships might rightly be said to be marriage in all but name, the fact remains that civil partnerships are not marriages.

The fact is that we have to be consistent. We have articles on civil unions AND marriage for New Zealand, Portugal, France, and Ireland. The major point though, is the difference in status. Currently, the UK has civil partnerships. It does not have marriage. (One of the major practical distinctions is that Church of England priests are obligated to marry any couple that asks them to, whereas civil partnerships cannot include a religious service.)

As for changing the name to "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom", it should be reverted, the reason being that this page is part of the series on Civil Unions. The redirect meant that people sill got here either way, while maintaining consistency.

I really don't think there's a debate to be had here. (The reason I removed the merge tag was because there were no entries on this talk page about the subject in the new year). Carolynparrishfan 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed the Merge Tag as a) there seems to be little or no enthusiasm for such a merge and b) discusison seems to have drawn to a close months ago. Csm1701 10:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

father and son registering a partnership in Scotland?

According to the text of the act [3], 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)

"virtually identical"

Are there any differences between a civil partnership and a marriage in the UK, other than the gender combination, the name, and certain aspects of the registration? Is there any right available to (or duty incumbent upon) married couples that does not equally apply to civil partners? --Jfruh 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Peerages aren't affected. The civil partner of the Duke of Clarence would still be Mr. NN.

I think there still may be tax differences, CPs being less favourable.213.86.59.92 12:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no tax disadvantages to being in a CP. Aside from the trivial differences mentionedin the article, CPs mirror civil marriages. Csm1701 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this really a problem?

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)

Disagree with merging

I don't believe that civil partnership and same sex marriage should be merged, they are VERY different. Same sex marriage is not legal in this country and is a right denied to gay men and lesbians. The Civil partnership is a divisive hopefully temporary stop-gap and should remain as a seperate entry with same sex marriage kept also seperate until we can genuinely say we are entitled to that. (sorry for the rant, this really bothers me!) --Brideshead 21:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not in favour of the merger, but from an opposite point of view: I don't find the word "marriage", with its religious baggage, at all attractive, and I am very happy to be in a civil partnership, as of last Saturday. (I was even happier to have a minimalist ceremony, as we've been living together for 30 years and don't have anything to prove to each other.) If I had my way I'd abolish marriage and have civil partnerships for all.

Anyway, the same-sex marriage article consists of a) a preamble saying that it isn't available and b) a lengthy piece about the current case. I think the time to think about merger is after the conclusion of the case. It may be that if same-sex marriages become legal, civil partnerships will continue to exist for those who want them, so two articles will be required, but if civil partnerships are merged into marriage then merger is the obvious route to follow. If same-sex marriage continues to be ruled out, then two articles make more sense to me.

--GuillaumeTell 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merger. The CP and Same Sex Marriage are different entities, the resulting merged article would be confusing. Csm1701 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Marriage IS the union of a man and a woman; same-sex marriage is therefore tautological. The state recognises that fact in Britain, and has at least had the intellectual honesty to admit that it does not have the authority to redefine an institution older than written history.

OK, (a) this talk page is for discussing the article, not arguing the merits of same-sex marriage; (b) please sign your additions to the talk page by adding four tildes at the end of your posts, and (c) I don't think you know what a tautology is. Hint: it doesn't mean "a contradiction". --Jfruh 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, you're right, it's not a tautology, it's a contradiction in terms! But I see you keep referring to "same sex marriage" all the same.

Protests

I have deleted the following para from the Protests section:

Leading British Muslim Sir Iqbal Sacranie expressed his opposition to civil partnerships in a BBC Radio 4 discussion in January 2006. Sacranie called civil partnerships harmful and unacceptable and said "It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society — stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in."[7]

Sacranie's views do not constitute a 'protest', just one man's opinion. That opinion was widely opposed, yet that opposition is not mentioned by way of adding balance. I can't imagine one man's POV would be worthy of entry in a more traditional encyclopedia, so can't think why it's included here. Csm1701 10:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not one Man's point of view - it's the profound belief and understanding of an overwhelming majority of the world's people.

I've read some sweeping statements on Wikipedia, but the above is deserving of some sort of award! Have also just had a wander though your past contributions. (Contributions for 82.70.132.246) Your penchant for POV outbursts (the vast majority of which get rv'd) means you won't be with us for too much longer. Please remember to sign your contributions to this page. Csm1701 15:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the extremely POV homosexualist lobby polices Wikipedia with an almost Teutonic sedulous enthusiasm, rv'ing anything that contradicts their minority world view, usually in spite of the FACTS, with spectacular rapidity. Just wait until somebody changes the article to imply that CPs are only open to "Same sex couples". When they simply AREN'T.

Read the Act! Seriously, read it, thoroughly! Your claim that 'any two people' of the same sex can enter into a CP is specifically refuted by the Act. If you cannot be bothered to read the Act, just enlarge the photo showing on the main page. Spot anything? Your rant about 'homosexualist lobby' policing Wikipedia is arrant nonsense. Your outburst re 'Teutonic sedulous enthusiasm' is positively racist. If you continue to deliberately foist your POV on this article and to vent your spleen here, we will have no option but to view your actions as vandalism. Csm1701 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in knowing what exactly UK law has to say on the subject of marriage, and whether a man and a woman are explicitly required by law to be a couple, or to perform heterosexual acts on one another, in order to be married. --Jfruh 18:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You Read the Act!! I HAVE read the Act, from Beginning to End, and there is nothing stopping two people of the same sex entering into a Civil Partnership for whatever reasons they wish! It's not a MARRIAGE, which is the state recognising and codefieing something that exists outside of the state - a sexual and emotional monogamous bond between a man and a woman - it's a LEGAL CONTRACT between two people of the same sex.

There are a number of possible scenarios which nullify a marriage, such as when the marriage is being entered into for reasons such as immigration, tax, benefits, or whatever, or when either party has the inability to enter into and sustain a caring and considerate (or normal) marital relationship, be that emotional or sexual. None of these apply to civil partnerships. In fact, there is a thriving, and perfectly legal, industry at the moment, of heterosexual men partnering other heterosexual men from foreign countries so they can get citizenship. Were these to have been people of the opposite sex getting married, these would be illegal, and the state could use non-consummation as evidence in such a case.

So until these FACTS change, I am reverting the article to my changes, and until the law specifies that a relationship exists between the partners, it will be vandalism on YOUR PART to revert it to "Same Sex Couples". And after all, WikiPedia is concerned with THE FACTS, not YOUR PREJUDICE.

Ros Power 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ros, As shown below, I have requested Mediation. I am sorry that you have chosen to react before that process could even begin. I have no idea why you are referring to marriage, you clearly have not read Section 3 of the Act and now you RV even though a request for Mediation has been made. I apologise to other contributors that I am unwilling to breach etiquette by putting the article back in order before a 3rd Party Mediator has had his/her chance to assist. Csm1701 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

MEDIATION: I have requested mediation on the wording for this article. 82.70.132.246 please do not rv until Mediation is complete. Thanks. Csm1701 20:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases

Hi I am your mediatior for this discussion, please now direct all discussion to this page here so as not to cluttr up the article talk page. To keep the discussion sensible I will first ask Csm1701 some questions and then ask Ros Power to respond. Please try not to add any comments until it is your turn, thats just to keep the discussion cohesive!!! -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 22:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Opposition

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

The Law

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)

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)

Gender Recognition Act

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)

Mediation

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 -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 11:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

No sorry I was reffering to Chris, please refer to the mediation discussion for reasons. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Elegibility=

Sorry for reiterating this point, but lest it gets lost in the labyrinth of edits and mediations.

From the Daily Telegraph ()["http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/06/nlaw06.xml" article]

"As the distinguished family lawyer Stephen Cretney explains in his Clarendon Lectures, to be delivered in Oxford later this month and published by Oxford University Press, the new legislation does not require civil partners to be homosexual or indeed to have a sexual relationship of any kind. They do not even need to live together.

The benefits on offer under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 are available to pretty well any unrelated couple of the same sex aged 16 or over, provided neither of them is already married. All they need to do is to sign a document before a registrar in the presence of each other and of two witnesses." Ros Power 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sign your contributions. Do not rv this article again, as per Mediator's instruction. Your blatant bigotry is available for all to read at the mediation page, here Csm 1701 18:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? The Act and senior lawyers writing in national broadsheets simply do not concur with what you want the law to be. You want the law to be about "same sex couples". You want the law to give credibility, validity and recognition to homosexuality and homosexual relationships. You know that the term "same sex couple" implies a homosexual relationship, as anyone will tell you it does. You have tried to contort the word couple to mean "any two people", and you want WikiPedia to reflect your world view, in contradiction of the facts. The facts are the facts. The facts are not what you would like. What you would like is of secondary importance to the facts. Ros Power 19:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you need to read the many pages of discussion on such topics and our guidelines for sexuality-related topics. Exploding Boy 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you are the pride of East Lothian, but why oh why can you not just sign your contributions? Shame? Csm 1701 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[4]

"A same-sex couple is a pair of people of the same sex, who pursue a relationship similar to that of a heterosexual married couple. See also: civil union, same-sex marriage, registered partnership, domestic partnership." Ros Power 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"

Ah I see. The website is nothing to do with me I'm afraid. I'll try to remember the sig thing. Ros Power 19:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys I think this discussion has gone far enough. I am referring it too the arbitration commitee. What the decide will be final so it seems the best option. I am sorry this did not end in a satisfactory manner for all parties. Please try to be civil in your comments and do not level personla accusations. Ros, please please remember to sign your comments, it helps the rest of us see that it is you that is commenting and stops talk pages getting confusing. Cheers -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Civil Partnerships Act?

There seems to be a massive overlap between these two articles. Surely they could be merged? Thoughts? 83.217.190.69 16:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the two is that the other article concentrates on the Act of Parliament - it's part of a comprehensive List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 2000-Present, which is part of a listing going back to the year dot. There are a lot of red links there, but it would be a pity not to have a pointer to this Act, as people might think that the subject wasn't covered in Wikipedia. I don't think that a direct pointer from the List of Acts page to here would be appropriate, as there is a lot more here than basic info about the Act, not to mention the (?continuing) edit war.

Might I suggest reducing the other article considerably, concentrating on the Parliamentary side, and, of the links at the bottom, retaining only the Drafts of the Act section and the link to this article, and moving here any other links not here already. I could have a go at this if there's a consensus. --GuillaumeTell 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that reducing the scope of the other article would seem to make sense, as does the rest of your suggestion.

The 'edit war' is being handled by admin and we can be reasonably confident that the original first line will be reinstated: can't say more at this stage. 83.217.190.69 18:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem to need merging as this article is quite long enough, though the article on the Act probably needs combing through to remove duplication. Kurando | ^_^ 09:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging would probably result in an article of pretty much the same length as it is now. 83.217.190.69 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The more I read the two articles, the less I think they should be merged. Although they cover similar ground, the style is different; and the CP Act page allows greater scope for giving the history of the Bill/Act's progess from concept to law. Deep 13 10:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the duplication in Civil Partnership Act 2004 so that it now only describes the Act and its passage and makes it clear that the detail and the discussion is over here. I've also removed the Merger tag. Hope that's acceptable. --GuillaumeTell 10:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Transsexuals

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?

Other countries

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)

Under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 certain "overseas relationships" between same sex couples are considered to be Civil Partnerships under UK law [5]. 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)

Couples

As far as I can see, the phrase 'same-sex couples' was deleted to appease one unhappy yet vocal editor. I have reinstated it. The phrase is used elsewhere in Wikipedia when discussing this subject and its use here therefore makes sense. ReformedCharacter 15:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We went to mediation with this and it was decided that, given the facts, the words "same sex couple" were POV. That may not suit the majority of people with a personal or ideological interest in the CP legislation and this article, but there you go. Ros Power 10:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claim above is a blatant lie, Ros. No decision was made and you are, again, distorting the truth. Shameful but typical behaviour. 83.217.190.69 07:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Doh! I restored the phrase to the article before I spotted this comment. In your summary you said there is 'No reference in Law to "same sex couples"', however, the very first line of the CP Act 2004 says "A civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex". To remove the reference to the same sex requirement is misleading. If it is the word "couple" you are objecting to, then we can perhaps find an alternative wording. Road Wizard 11:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ros: The mediation page [6] indicates that mediation ended when one party withdrew. Please direct us to the page where the decision you claim was made can be read. Lost Garden 15:28, 6 August 2006.

Unfortuately the Mediation case fell apart and I decided to close it as insults were starting ot appear - which didn't help the situation. However I can say that we never really reached agreement.

Now that I am not mediating this case I think I can actually have an opinion. We did not agree that same sex was POV, rather we agreed that it could be construed as not being NPOV. A subtle but important difference. Actually, in truth we never properly agreed on that either. Towards the end of the case I think the other party agreed that in light of the dispute the words could be changed - however we did not reach an agreement over what the new words should be before the case descended into insults and i felt I had to close it (hence the big notice on the medcab page).

My opinion however is that as it is included in the act it is appropriate in this article. This was the major evidence presented to oppose Ros Power's argumant and, to be honest, I think it has alot of weight. I will look through the case again however (as requested by Lost Garden or my talk page) and post a formal conclusion to the process and let you take it from there (I will be assuming the role of no opinion again for it so don't worry about bias etc.) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Lost Garden 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

TMorton166, you suggested in the mediation this wording, with which I am happy.

"In December 2005 Civil Partnerships were introduced in the UK. The act allows two people of the same sex to enter into a formal partnership that grants similar rights and responsibilties to that of marriages. Although the act does not stipulate that the 2 people must be in a relationship many of the current people entering into a CP were previously in a relationship."

I maintain that the term "same-sex couple" is not NPOV. Two widows or widowers entering into a CP are not a "same-sex couple". This is a term that implies two people who perform homosexual acts upon one another, or are in a relationship that imitates marriage. The law simply does not specify that. I have gone over this in huge detail on the mediation page [7]. Ros Power 09:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have said above, there is some leeway in discussing an alternative for the word "couple". However, the term "same-sex" is clearly specified in the law. Your continued removal of "same-sex" against the consensus of the other editors is not acceptable as it is also not NPOV. Road Wizard 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ros Power's recent amendment makes no sense - the partnership can only be between people of the same sex. I've put in some words to make that clear. I'd be prepared to accept the TMorton66 sentences which she quotes above, provided that "many" in the second sentence is changed to "all or nearly all". --GuillaumeTell 14:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now altered the opening para along the above lines. --GuillaumeTell 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article being damaged once again to appease Ros Power? Ros Power has only one purpose here (see her user page), she is simply trying to restart an old edit war that she lost months ago. She is taking the Mediator's quotes out of context, ignores any part of his decision that doesn't support her conservative agenda, and is not beyond using falsehoods (see above). I have reverted the article so that it now makes sense, so that it accurately reflects what the CP Act is about. I am astonished that Ros Power's vandalism of the good work of so many is still permitted - perhaps it is time to find out how to rid ourselves of this pest? 83.217.190.69 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That the majority of editors of an article don't like the facts doesn't mean the facts aren't the facts. The facts are that "same-sex couple" means a homosexual relationship, and civil partnerships are not limited to people in homosexual relationships. And that's a fact. The fact that only one person wants this fact elucidated and the article to be factually correct, and that most editors don't like the facts, doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be factually correct. When somebody can demonstrate that civil partnerships are only open to "same sex couples", I'll rescind, until that point, I'll keep making this article factually correct.

82.70.132.246 04:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A disgraceful outburst wholly contrary to WP's regs on consensus. Your dictatorial manner is wholly inappropriate here and you are respectfully asked to desist. If you cannot work in a collegiate manner, I will ask admin to review you ability to edit here at all. As you have a user id, Ros Power, please use it. 83.217.190.69 07:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ros Power. You've been warned repeatedly on your Talk page about the manner in which you interact with fellow editors. You have also been advised that you must follow the disputes resolution process. This article is the result of hard work by a large number of editors who will not permit you to ruin it. Yes, straight people could form a CP: gay people could also marry - however I do not see you altering, repeatedly, the various marriage-related articles to reflect that. Worse, your edit is factually incorrect as CPs are not open to any two people. Sloppy, politically motivated, bad-mannered editing has has no place here, or anywhere else on WP, either. A little self control on your part would be appreciated. Trance or Daze? 07:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Surname change

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)

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)

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)

Terminology

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)

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)

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

Mediation answers

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)

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)