Civil Partnership legislation

[memevector]

Interesting meeting on Monday at the DTI, about Registered Partnerships.

Consultation is still happening now, and will be until 30 September. I'd like to encourage people to write and say what they think. You can send in comments by email.

I plan to write in myself, probably a mix of my own views and "This is what I've heard other bi people say". We were encouraged to put stuff in writing despite having been at the meeting, and to include both what we agree with and what we're criticising.

I plan to put my one up on the web so people can bounce off that, but it might be a bit last-minute. Meanwhile, I also recommend that interested people get the PDF of the government consultation document ("Civil Partnership - a framework for the legal recognition of same-sex couples"), and have a look through it. The meeting I went to was based around discussion of that, and it includes several specific questions they're asking for feedback on.

This page on the Stonewall site includes a link to that, a link to the Law Society's commentary, and the (post & email) addresses to write to.
The Equality Network in Scotland had a conference on the subject, and the conference report (follow link for "fifth Equality for All Conference") is also interesting reading. (Thanks davidmcn for the link).

As the proposals stand right now for Registered Partnership:

• It will only be available to same-sex couples.


• Looks like in terms of rights/money it will be pretty much point for point equivalent to marriage; but it won't be called marriage.


• It could be called something other than Registered Partnership, though - they're asking for suggestions.

("It is a matter of public record that the Government has no plans to introduce same sex marriage" - Civil Partnership consultation document. I haven't heard anyone give specific reasons, but my impression is the bottom line is they're convinced they wouldn't be able to swing it at present, because of church opposition.)

My vibes in brief about the structure outlined:

• Highly welcome as far as it goes, and will radically change the lives of some people in some situations (e.g. to do with carers/illness, inheritance, etc)


• Valuable stepping stone to future changes in attitudes to same-sex relationships


• Polyamory is ignored, which I find rather a downer but predictable


• I disagree strongly with making it same-sex only (though I accept that there are political arguments both ways on that)


• I disagree fundamentally with some of the rhetoric around it (more on that later)

Comments

[barakta]

Interesting that they don't pla on introducing same-sex marriage. If this thing is almost identical to marriage, yet isn't marriage whats the point in calling it someting different.

Making the new 'registered partnership' (for want of a better term at present) unavailable to opposide-sex couples who want to register their partnership without the whole marriage thing doesn't do anything to improve its popularity. I know of heterosexual couples who would be against this proposal based on the fact its only available to same-sex couples.

So its marriage but not as far as I can see. What does this do for us in foreign countries with regards to being recognised as a legal partnership? Would the UK gov't be prepared to back a 'registered couple' if they were deemed not to be a 'couple' by another country i.e USA?

Gonna go and read up more about it as I am web-master of my LGB website and this is a useful topic for us to discuss and think about.

Yay for gov't meetingy type things and your input, will go and read up some more before making further comments.

Natalya

[mankylarry.livejournal.com]

Did you mention Bisexuality or was it just Poly at the consultation ?


Laurence

[memevector.livejournal.com]

It wasn't officially about poly at all - it was the LGB stakeholders' round table. But I plan to allude to poly in my written comments.

[mankylarry.livejournal.com]

Will this confuse the issue ? Will Bisexuality be read as simply a poly choice, are they mutually inclusive/exclusive for purposes of the consultation ? Are the partnerships rights about sexual orientation equality or about something else, what is the legal presidence for the legilsative change ? If it is Sexual Orientation and EU legislation, then Bisexuality is predominently the mainsaty of the argument I would suggest, and poly is incidental.

Laurence

[memevector.livejournal.com]

(Any ranty frustration manifested here is aimed at the situation, not at you :-) )

To be honest, my feeling is that nothing anyone says about poly or bisexuality at this stage will make any difference at all to this round of eventual legislation. It feels to me like the things I'd personally want to alter about it (such as the limitation to same-sex relationships) are there due to a cultural/political momentum which isn't going to be swayable at this point in politics. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's my impression.

If you can show me something specific that you think we have a chance of getting in this round of legislation, which we're not already getting, and which is worth getting, then I'd be interested - in what that might be, and in questioning what kind of approach might make that outcome more likely. But right now, I don't see anything in that category. The whole thing is already headed in a particular direction, and has been since before the consultation document was issued: quasi-marriage for people in long-term same-sex couple relationships. That's it. 99% of the debate is about how that might be implemented, and making sure that no little loopholey corners get left out to make it not quite equivalent to marriage in terms of rights.

So when you ask (of bi & poly) are they mutually inclusive/exclusive for purposes of the consultation? my answer is They're both INVISIBLE for the purposes of the consultation! Bi people will benefit directly from this legislation only when they're in long-term same-sex couple relationships, so what is there to ask for that's bi-specific?

I'd really like it not to mention gender at all, but I don't get the sense there's any chance of that at this stage.

Even the rather interesting question of whether you can register and not have your details publicly accessible seems to have pretty much been decided already: registered partnerships will be a matter of public record, and if that means you're outed to the local homophobes, tough luck. Allowing mixed-sex couples to register could be part of a solution to that - but current politics are against it (e.g. rhetoric about "undermining marriage").

So for me at this point, it's more like: I just feel like putting it on record that, while this is very useful legislation for many reasons, there are still relationships which it doesn't do anything to support... even while they say fine words about upholding "the importance of interdependent, stable relationships". It's important to me to say that some people are still left out. At least I might be able to influence them to acknowledge that, in the contextual fine words, even if I can't influence them to do something about it at this point.

And when I'm saying I'd like to encourage people to write in, it's not really because I think we need to be working on making this legislation more bi-friendly, or something like that. It's partly because I think it's important to say "Hooray for rights for same-sex couples, a step in the right direction, thank you and well done". And it's partly to indicate what I feel is still missing, even if it doesn't get implemented for years yet.

Personally I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. On the one hand, fuckin' ace, something resembling equal rights for gay people (even though it's not really equal, 'cause that would be gay marriage). On the other hand, I and a lot of my friends are entirely invisible in all the rhetoric around this. Going to that meeting really brought it home to me what it means to live outside the conventional structures which the system endorses and promotes.

So, yeah, if you can suggest to me something specific we ought to be asking for, I'd be interested. And I'm well aware of the advantages of not conflating bisexuality and polyamory, so I shan't mix them together in how I write it. But I'm finding it hard to relate the tactical/strategic questions you're talking about to what I think is going on in this arena right now. Comments on that welcome.

Anyway, I should really stop writing this, and write my commentary for the government instead :-)

[mankylarry.livejournal.com]

Cheers

and hooray to you, for your hard work.

Seems very much that the consultation is that they can say that they talked to all groups to tell them what the legislation is going to be.

Your right in the sesne that it is a progressive step in the right direction, and should be applauded for that. It's faily amiasing the changes that have happened over the last 30 years, given the hard work of activists and lobbyists for winning the argument. Can you imagine if we still had the legislation of the 50's.

As for the Bi v Poly stuff, at this moment it doesn't really matter by the sounds of things, but if the legislkative change is based upon sexual orientation equality enforced by EU convention, then there could be a legal argument that equality on grounds of legislatioin is not being met, since some bisexuals do not have equal rights. But that's more of a EU wide issue and will need to be kept for the next round of debate. I only suggest that on the grounds that if you mention it in your report to the consultative stage, then the notion is lodged and if it ends up in their document then there is a starting point or reference point for future discussion,lobbying. I admit that although it may be relevant know there is no chance of changing the wheels in motion and tactically, it may put a spanner in the works at this critical stage.

I guess that's an issue for future long term political activism tactical and strategic implications for Bi and potentially LGBT national lobby groups in the EU for the future.

I don't have a problem with Poly so to speak, but it's not a sexual orientation in respect to what is commonly known or supported by medical/legal evidence to be sexual orientation neit

POKER TEXAS HOLD EM OVER THE WEB GAMES

[(Anonymous)]

Please visit some relevant pages about NO DOWNLOAD POKER STUD EIGHT (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/no-download-poker-texas-game.html) NO DOWNLOAD POKER STUD EIGHT http://www.e-poker-2005.com/no-download-poker-texas-game.html (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/no-download-poker-texas-game.html)
INTERNET POKER 7 CARDS (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/internet-poker-7-cards-stud-tournament.html) INTERNET POKER 7 CARDS http://www.e-poker-2005.com/internet-poker-7-cards-stud-tournament.html (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/internet-poker-7-cards-stud-tournament.html)
CASINO POKER WORLD GAME (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/casino-poker-world-tournament.html) CASINO POKER WORLD GAME http://www.e-poker-2005.com/casino-poker-world-tournament.html (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/casino-poker-world-tournament.html)
7 STUD H L TOURNAMENTS (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/7-stud-h-l-world-tour-tournament.html) 7 STUD H L TOURNAMENTS http://www.e-poker-2005.com/7-stud-h-l-world-tour-tournament.html (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/7-stud-h-l-world-tour-tournament.html)
SEVEN CARDS STUD POKER CONTEST (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/seven-cards-stud-poker.html) SEVEN CARDS STUD POKER CONTEST http://www.e-poker-2005.com/seven-cards-stud-poker.html (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/seven-cards-stud-poker.html)
SEVEN CARDS ACRPOKER ONLINE (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/seven-cards-poker-888-shareware.html) SEVEN CARDS ACRPOKER ONLINE http://www.e-poker-2005.com/seven-cards-poker-888-shareware.html (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/seven-cards-poker-888-shareware.html)
POKER FOR FUN (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/poker-forum.html) POKER FOR FUN http://www.e-poker-2005.com/poker-forum.html (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/poker-forum.html)
POKER FIVE CARD STUD (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/poker-flush-freerolls-on-line.html) POKER FIVE CARD STUD http://www.e-poker-2005.com/poker-flush-freerolls-on-line.html (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/poker-flush-freerolls-on-line.html)
PLAYING POKER (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/play-internet-poker-online.html) PLAYING POKER http://www.e-poker-2005.com/play-internet-poker-online.html (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/play-internet-poker-online.html)
OMAHA HIGH LOW TOURNAMENT (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/omaha-high-pacific-poker.html) OMAHA HIGH LOW TOURNAMENT http://www.e-poker-2005.com/omaha-high-pacific-poker.html (http://www.e-poker-2005.com/omaha-high-pacific-poker.html)
...