Excluding straight couples is discrimination.
End the ban on same-sex civil marriage.
Rights urged for all relationships of mutual care and commitment.
London – 5 December 2005
“Same-sex civil partnerships are heterophobic. Excluding heterosexual couples perpetuates and extends discrimination,” said gay human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
He was commenting on the new same-sex civil partnerships law that comes into effect today, 5 December 2005.
“We cannot accept the exclusion of our heterosexual brothers and sisters from civil partnerships, anymore than we can accept the exclusion of lesbians and gays from civil marriage,” continued Mr Tatchell.
“The homophobia of the ban on same-sex civil marriage is compounded by the heterophobia of the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships. Two wrongs do not make a right.
“There should be one law for everyone. Equality means opening up civil marriage to lesbian and gay partners, and making civil partnerships available to heterosexual couples.
“Civil partnerships are not equality. Only the legislation of same-sex civil marriage will ensure true legal parity for lesbian and gay couples.
“The Green Party is currently the only political party to support same-sex civil marriage. All the other parties back the ban.
“The defenders of civil partnerships say the new system is, in effect, the same as marriage. In that case, why don’t they support a simple amendment to the marriage laws to include gay people? A one line amendment would have been the most effective and least complicated way to ensure legal rights for same-sex couples.
“Civil partnerships create a two-tier system of relationship recognition and rights, with marriage reserved for straights only and civil partnerships reserved for gays only.
“The gay community has always demanded equal rights. Why is it now settling for the sexual apartheid of one law for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals?
“Imagine the outcry if the government said Jewish people could not get married but they could have a civil partnership instead. The government would be denounced as anti-Semitic.
“Civil partnerships are institutional homophobia. They signal that gay people are unfit for marriage and that we require legal segregation from the majority heterosexual community.
“Marriage is the gold standard. Civil partnerships are ‘marriage lite’ for gays. They are second best.
“Instead of legislating a Mark 2 version of marriage, the government should have taken this opportunity to modernise the whole legal basis of relationship recognition and rights.
“It should have opted for a broader, non-discriminatory framework of partnership recognition – covering all relations involving mutual care and commitment, including both sexual love and intimate, supportive non-sexual friendship.
“People should be allowed to nominate as their next-of-kin and beneficiary any ‘significant other’ in their life. It could be a partner or lover, but it could also be a sister, carer, favourite nephew, house-sharer, or best friend. Two widows who set up house together and care for one another, for example, ought to have the option of legal recognition.
“We need an entirely new framework of relationship recognition because many non-sexual friendships are just as sincere, loyal and enriching as relations between people in love. They, too, should have legal recognition. It is unfair to restrict partnership rights to people in sexual relationships. What about close friends who support each other, but who are not in a traditional love coupling? They deserve recognition too.
“Only a minority of relationships last a lifetime. Break ups and death are sad realities of life. Single people account for a quarter of all households. This means that friends now play an increasingly important role in people’s lives and support networks. It is wrong to deny legal rights to two loyal friends who have a strong, supportive bond, just because they are not lovers and don’t have sex.
“A similar broad system of relationship recognition already exists in Tasmania, and enjoys widespread popular support. If it works there, why can’t it work here?,” queried Mr Tatchell.