Civil Partnership Bill Perpetuates And Extends Discrimination.
All relationships of mutual care and commitment deserve recognition and rights.
London – UK – 30 June 2004
“The House of Lords’ amendment to the same-sex Civil Partnership Bill has not wrecked it or rendered it unworkable, as the government claims”, according to the Coalition for Marriage Equality (CfME), which includes nearly all politically independent gay campaign groups, except Stonewall.
“We welcome the extension of rights and protections to carers, despite the Lord’s homophobic motives and wrecking intentions”, said Brett Lock of CfME. “The Bill should be further amended to recognise all domestic relationships; not just same-sex couples and carers, but unmarried heterosexual partners too”.
The legislative passage of the Civil Partnership Bill, which gives legal recognition and rights to lesbian and gay couples, was thrown into disarray last week. Tory peers extended the Bill’s scope to grant legal rights to people in non-sexual relationships of care and commitment, such as two widows who set up house together and provide each other with emotional and practical support.
Denying rights to these people is “discriminatory”, said the Lords. Fair point. But having claimed the moral high ground by opposing discrimination, their lordships then inserted an outrageously discriminatory clause specifying that unmarried heterosexuals should be ineligible for civil partnership benefits.
Claims by peers that they were acting altruistically, out of a concern for fair and equal treatment, were further undermined by rants from the red benches bemoaning “unnatural sexual practices” and the “hijacking” of the word gay. Oh dear.
Although up-in-arms over the Lord’s amendment, the government’s own behaviour is less than creditable. As well as opposing the extension of rights to carers, the government also backs the exclusion of non-married opposite-sex couples.
Surprisingly, the government’s stance is supported by the main gay lobby group, Stonewall. While campaigning against homophobic discrimination, it endorses discrimination against heterosexuals and carers. Stonewall is doubtless pursuing well-intentioned parliamentary tactics, but the endorsement of discrimination can never be right. It gives the impression the gay community is selfish and doesn’t care about the human rights of others.
This lack of consistency has made the Bill vulnerable to anti-gay manipulation and the present legislative chaos, says Richard Kirker of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. He argues the government should stick to the principle of “one law for all”.
His view is shared the CfME. It wants civil marriage opened up to same-sex couples; plus an inclusive civil partnership scheme along the lines proposed by gay rights group OutRage!, covering all mutually supportive relationships – gay and straight, lovers and ‘significant others’.
While the government claims it is not feasible to broaden the Civil Partnerships Bill, the Australian state of Tasmania has already set a precedent with its Relationships Act 2003. This pioneering legislation offers a ready-made legislative template, which could be adapted relatively easily by our own parliament. Successful and popular, it grants legal rights to all relationships of mutual devotion and support; including gay couples, carers and unmarried heterosexual partners. The philosophical basis of the Tasmanian law is that close, caring relationships – whether conjugal or non-conjugal – are good for the people involved and are socially beneficial. It works Down Under, why not here?
The legislative fiasco over the Civil Partnerships Bill has prompted CfME to renew its call for an end to the ban on gay marriage. This would be a much simpler and more effective way to ensure same-sex partnership rights.
The Marriage Act 1949 does not specify that marriage partners have to be male and female. This rule was introduced only in 1973, under the Matrimonial Causes Act. A short, simple Bill repealing the relevant section of the 1973 legislation would remove the sole legal impediment to same-sex marriage.
Both CfME and OutRage! have condemned the outlawing of gay marriages and straight civil partnerships; arguing this creates “a system of sexual apartheid”, where there is one law for heterosexuals and another for lesbians and gays. It perpetuates and extends inequality. The homophobia of marriage law is compounded by the heterophobia of civil partnerships. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Imagine the outcry if the government prohibited black people from getting married and introduced a separate partnership scheme for non-whites. Why, then, is there no outcry when the government legislates a two-tier partnership system that creates a form of apartheid based on sexual orientation?
In a democracy everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. The easiest and most principled way to ensure legal rights for same-sex partners is by ending the ban on gay marriage.
“The gay community has always insisted on equality”, says CfME. “Why should we now accept partnership laws that discriminate?”