Call for new Civil Commitment Pact covering all relationships of care and support, not just sexual partnerships.
“It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples”, says gay human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
“Cohabiting heterosexuals also lack legal recognition and protection. This is a grave injustice. The government should amend its proposals to ensure legal rights for all unwed couples, gay and straight”.
Mr Tatchell was commenting on the government’s new civil registration scheme for same-sex partners, announced today, Monday 30 June 2003, by Equalities Minister, Jacqui Smith MP.
He also urged “the broadening of the legislation to cover all relationships of care and support, not just sexual partnerships”.
Under the government’s new scheme, lesbian and gay partners are to be granted many of the legal rights that go with marriage, but these rights will not extend to unmarried opposite-sex partners.
“These proposals remedy key aspects of discrimination against gay couples, but they discriminate against unmarried heterosexual partners. Replacing homophobia with heterophobia is a regrettable, retrograde move”.
Mr Tatchell went on to criticise the government’s proposals as “cautious and unimaginative”.
“Legislation to remedy the lack of legal rights for unmarried partners is long overdue. It is a pity the government has opted for an unimaginative, watered-down version of marriage, instead of having the foresight to devise an entirely new, modern legal framework for partnership recognition, covering gays and heterosexuals, and lovers and close friends”.
CIVIL COMMITMENT PACT
“It is time there was a more democratic, egalitarian alternative to marriage”.
“I would like to see a new system of partnership recognition – a Civil Commitment Pact – where people would be allowed to nominate as their next-of-kin and beneficiary any ‘significant other’ in their life. This significant person could be a lover, but it could also be a sister, carer, favourite nephew or life-long best friend”.
“Many non-sexual friendships are just as sincere, committed and enduring as relations between people in love. They, too, should have legal recognition”.
“There is no reason why partnership rights should be restricted to people in sexual relationships. That discriminates against people who support each other through deep, long-standing friendships. All relationships based on care and mutual commitment deserve recognition and protection”.
“As well as allowing people to nominate any significant person in their life, a new partnership law should also offer flexibility and choice with regard to rights and responsibilities”.
“There is, nowadays, a huge variety of relationships and lifestyles. There are people who live together, and those who live apart. Some share their finances; others maintain financial independence. The law should reflect and support these diverse relationship choices and realities. The one-size-fits-all model of relationship recognition – epitomised by marriage – is no longer appropriate.”
“Any new partnership legislation should allow people to pick and mix from a menu of rights and responsibilities. This flexibility would enable them to devise a tailor-made partnership agreement suited to their own particular needs. Some partners, for example, may want next-of-kin rights but not joint guardianship of children from a previous relationship. The law should let them make that choice. Unfortunately, marriage and the government’s proposed same-sex civil registration scheme don’t give people these options. They insist on all or nothing”.
“Permitting people to choose from a menu of rights and responsibilities has an additional virtue. It would require partners to sit down together and negotiate their obligations towards each other on each specific issue, such as property inheritance and the right to sign a partner’s death certificate and organise their funeral. This point-by-point negotiation would compel partners to examine their relationship more closely and to think through in greater detail the implications of entering a partnership agreement. It might lead to a sounder, more enduring commitment”.
“With marriage and the planned same-sex civil registration scheme, however, there is no obligation on partners to discuss the detail of their mutual rights and responsibilities. They simply sign a certificate, without any need to negotiate the particulars”.
“My pick and mix model of partnership recognition – which would also give rights to nominated non-sexual close friends – is a democratic, flexible alternative to marriage and civil registration”.
“This alternative, which I have called a Civil Commitment Pact, would benefit everyone lovers and friends, gay and straight”, said Mr Tatchell.