Why not equality for all relationships of mutual care and commitment?
Hundreds of same-sex couples will this week tie the knot in Britain’s first civil partnership ceremonies. In registry offices all over the land, lesbian and gay partners will, at last, gain legal recognition.
While this milestone is a cause for celebration, it also has a downside. For the first time in modern British legal history, instead of repealing discrimination parliament has reinforced and extended it. Civil partnerships are for same-sex couples only. Straights are excluded. Conversely, marriage remains reserved for heterosexuals, to the exclusion of gays. The differential treatment of hetero and homo couples is enshrined in law. Welcome to segregation, UK-style.
The homophobia of the ban on same-sex marriage is now compounded by the heterophobia of the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships. It’s official: one law for heterosexuals and another for lesbians and gays. Since when have two wrongs made a right?
Imagine the outcry if the government prohibited black people from getting married, and established a separate partnership register for non-whites. It would be condemned as racism and apartheid.
Is the segregationist nature of marriage and civil partnership law much different? By legislating a two-tier system of relationship recognition Labour has, in effect, created a form of legal apartheid based on sexual orientation.
In a democracy everyone is supposed to be equal in law. Separate is not equal. The gay community has always insisted on equality. Why should we now accept partnership laws that perpetuate discrimination?
Many of us are not satisfied. According to a Pink Paper poll, half the lesbian and gay community believe “civil partnership is second best to marriage.” When Denmark and the Netherlands introduced civil partnerships, less than 15 percent of same-sex couples registered their relationship. A similar low take-up is likely in the UK. Some won’t register because they want the gold standard, marriage. Others will remain unregistered because they don’t want to mimic straight lifestyles or to get lumbered with the legal straightjacket of wedlock.
This queer scepticism is echoed by many heterosexual couples. They are increasingly deserting marriage in favour of cohabitation. Time, surely, for a new legal framework of relationship recognition?
Instead of legislating a second rate version of marriage for gays only, the government could have created a truly modern system of partnership rights for everyone – gay and straight – covering all relationships of mutual care and commitment.
Supportive, caring relations – whether between lovers or friends – are good for the people involved and have a wider social benefit. They enhance a person’s well-being and offer support in times of need; as well as diminishing dependence on the state. It is therefore in society’s interest to encourage and reward all such relationships with legal validation and protection.
My proposed Civil Commitment Pact would allow people to nominate as their next-of-kin and beneficiary any ‘significant other’ in their life. It could be a lover, but it could also be a sister, carer, housemate or life-long best friend.
Many non-sexual friendships are as sincere, loyal and enriching as relations between people in love. They, too, should have legal recognition. Restricting partnership rights to people in sexual relationships discriminates against close friends who support each other, but who are not in a traditional love coupling. If an elderly brother and sister set up house together and care for one another, why shouldn’t they have legal rights?
Unfortunately, few partnerships last a lifetime. Single people account for nearly a third of all households. Friends now play an increasingly important role in people’s lives and support networks. It’s wrong to deny legal rights to close friends who have a strong, supportive bond, just because they are not lovers and don’t have sex.
Similar legislation exists in Tasmania. Legal rights are granted to all relationships of mutual devotion and support; including gay couples, carers and unmarried heterosexual partners. It works Down Under, why not here?
As well as allowing people to nominate any significant person in their life, my Civil Commitment Pact would offer flexibility and choice. Partners could pick-and-mix from a menu of rights and responsibilities. Rights concerning tax contributions and social security benefits would have to be linked together to prevent people claiming the benefits of relationship registration and avoiding the costs. Otherwise, there is no reason why two people should not be free to construct their own unique partnership agreement, tailored to their own particular needs.
We see around us a huge variety of relationships and lifestyles. There are couples 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. The one-size-fits-all model of relationship recognition – exemplified by marriage and civil partnerships – is no longer appropriate.
* A slightly edited version of this article was published in The Guardian on 19 December 2005.