The state should not seek to incentivise marriage through the tax system. But it should recognise family household units whether married, unmarried or in a civil partnership. It is therefore proposed that a non-working adult's personal income tax allowance may be transferred in full to another working adult residing in the same household. Only one transfer would be allowed per household.
Under all devolved jurisdications each party to the civil partnership must be of the same sex. This option should be extended to heterosexual couples who may not wish to partake in the institution of marriage.
[^1]: British Social Attitudes Survey (pdf)
I like this one - it's small, but seems good for completeness. As a heterosexual, I feel mildly discriminated that I can't have a civil partnership with a woman. It's not a big deal though to be honest - if I really cared, I'd just modify my mental meaning of "marriage" like everyone else does.
This is a useful summary of the current difference between marriage and civil partnership: http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/family/marriageandcivil_partnerships/500385.html
There is, essentially, very little difference legally between a marriage and a civil partnership except that > the former is intended only for heterosexual couples and the latter for homosexual couples.
The difference exists principally due to protests from religious groups about recognising same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in the same way. In fact, religious institutions are not legally permitted to perform civil partnerships.
Hmm, after reading that this puts me off. Basically marriage and civil partnerships are already the same. The only reason to change it would be to have a dig at religious groups for wanting to keep the word "marriage" as specially heterosexual.
While it does leave me not liking "marriage" because of its religious associations, that is just the same bias in reverse, I think.
👍 because completeness and equality, but as gay marriage is now legal, do we need civil partnerships any more? As @frabcus says, there's really no difference except naming.
@PaulJRobinson - over 9 years ago
👍 but to cover James' point above about whether they are still needed at all: some civil partners don't want to get married and why should they be forced into that transition. Also who is the State to tell them their civil partnership is now void unless they wish to marry?
@philipjohn - over 9 years ago
👍 "Marriage" comes with baggage, which is just a perception thing, yes, but it's important to a lot of people.
@francisdavey - over 9 years ago
Or abolish completely state intervention in marriage and allow simple registration of unions with the right to contract out to registered bodies. I have no idea why we don't do this. Stupidity and stubbornness by the state perhaps?
What I mean is: invent a status ("tax and property union") or something and allow people to register it with some formalities but without ceremony. To allow the status quo ante to continue, permit organisations (like churches, philosophical societies and so on) to register to perform ceremonies which will act as the formalisation of a tax and property union. Allow people to call it what they like.
Civil Partnerships were invented because it was thought to be too complicated to have same-sex marriage at the time (too much secondary legislating to do). There's no really good conceptual distinction, but lots of small and needless legal distinctions. Better to simply sweep the whole thing up into simplicity rather than the complex mess of rules that are at present.
@digitalWestie - over 9 years ago
Yeah, Francis does have a point, is the state getting involved in something it shouldn't? Or is this just semantics marriage / tax&property union ?
On 16 October 2014 20:05, Francis Davey [email protected] wrote:
Or abolish completely state intervention in marriage and allow simple registration of unions with the right to contract out to registered bodies. I have no idea why we don't do this. Stupidity and stubbornness by the state perhaps?
What I mean is: invent a status ("tax and property union") or something and allow people to register it with some formalities but without ceremony. To allow the status quo ante to continue, permit organisations (like churches, philosophical societies and so on) to register to perform ceremonies which will act as the formalisation of a tax and property union. Allow people to call it what they like.
Civil Partnerships were invented because it was thought to be too complicated to have same-sex marriage at the time (too much secondary legislating to do). There's no really good conceptual distinction, but lots of small and needless legal distinctions. Better to simply sweep the whole thing up into simplicity rather than the complex mess of rules that are at present.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/227#issuecomment-59413142 .
The OpenPolitics Manifesto
@digitalWestie - over 9 years ago