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

[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