Why Civil Partnerships are not Equal to Marriage

In the UK, the government allows same-sex couples to obtain a "civil partnership" in recognition of their relationship. Under UK law (the Civil Partnership Act of 2004) same-sex registered couples are to be treated equally to married couples in all aspects of employment, taxes, benefits and rights/responsibilities.

Of course, this begs the question - well then, isn't it just marriage? Not by a long shot and I want to share my thoughts on why this, although a reasonable first step, is ultimately a disappointment and insulting to me and Troy.

The very basic issue comes down to equality. If I am to be fully equal to others, don't separate out what you call my relationship from theirs. If the intent is to give me equal rights, then make it so by calling it marriage. There are plenty of arguments in this space and mostly come down to the "separate is never equal" argument.

More importantly for me is that "marriage" as a term is widely accepted and acknowledged. If a couple is married in one country and moves to another, their relationship status is unambiguous. They are married. If a couple marries in one state and travels to another, no one will question their status. If one is admitted to a hospital on a holiday trip, the authority of the other is acknowledged. They are married and the concept holds true world-wide.

Now try explaining the concept of Civil Partnership. Since this specifically applies only to the UK, recognition of the relationship is question outside the boundaries of the UK. Presumably, countries like Canada - who already recognize full marriage for all members of their society - will also recognize a Civil Partnership from the UK. But what about countries where there is not formal recognition? The status of the relationship, the ability of one person to act on behalf of the other, and the life-and-death decisions people sometimes have to make, are all up for question. Will there be any acknowledgement of the Civil Partnership? At least if this were full marriage, there is a logical argument that even if a country does not allow full equal marriage itself, MARRIAGE as a concept is well understood and therefore the relationship could be recognized also.

There are also some insulting aspects of the UK's Civil Partnership law. I want to say first, that I'm pleased with how progressive the UK is compared to the US. So, although the UK is far and away more equal, it's still not actually equal. The most insulting aspect of the Civil Partnership bill is, unlike marriage, Civil Partnerships are explicitly forbidden by law to take place in the context of a religious ceremony! Imagine that - if I wanted to have a religious ceremony and form the Civil Partnership in that context, I'm not allowed to! Someone please explain the rationale for that to me.

There are a few other items I want to explain, especially for people who don't know a lot about these topics yet. The United States has two-tiers of government that typically affect marriage rights (more actually, but I'll just focus on the big two). The overall US federal government has the "master" set of laws and those are the ones that must be followed nationwide, whether in California or Maine. Notably for the discussion around equal marriage for gays is that the federal government sets and controls the prevailing set of laws around federal taxation, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Social Security Administration department (retirement, survivor benefits, etc) and what is considered a taxable event. In addition to the Federal laws, each state (there are 50 states that make up the US) has a set of state laws. These state laws typically would provide laws for issues of importance to the specific state. Some times, these are in addition to federal laws (supplement them), and other times, these are unrelated (ie there is no federal law at all on the particular topic). The federal government explicitly says that the institution of marriage is to be regulated by each individual state, so each state determines how it wants to regulate marriages. In all states except one - Massachusetts - same-sex marriage is not legal. In some states, it is explicitly forbidden; in other states, same-sex marriage is just not addressed at all - and is neither explicitly legal nor explicitly illegal. Massachusetts has legalized equal marriage for same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. Now it gets complicated.

The Federal government explicitly says that marriage is to be regulated by each state. The Federal government also says that federal agencies will only recognize marriage between one man and one woman. So, in Massachusetts we literally have same-sex couples who are legally married in Massachusetts and yet are treated as complete strangers by the USA as a country. This becomes a major problem in many circumstances, but a few jump out in particular. One of the biggest ones is when one of the people die. Upon death, the Federal government's laws kick in - for example, the IRS determines what part of the estate is taxable. With a marriage that the federal government recognizes, there is no problem - spousal privileges allow the living spouse to inherit the house without paying tax on it. Seems pretty reasonable to me. But since the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage - even when it's completely legal in Massachusetts - the surviving spouse is a legal stranger according to the IRS, so it's the equivalent of one person leaving his house to a stranger - and the stranger has to pay taxes on the value of the house (or at least the portion that was willed to him)! This causes many couples, especially elderly ones, to have to SELL their house just to pay the taxes. Yeah, that helps support a stable society and promotes family stability.

To make this a little more personal, Troy and I have been together since 1998. We've owned two home together in the US, are buying a place here in London hopefully, and intend to spend the rest of our lives together. We're committed to each other, financially and emotionally support each other, and are each other's best friends. We are active in the community and are a positive impact on society. And yet our relationship is not fully recognized in any sense as it would be if we were an opposite-sex couple. I'm hopeful that the next US president can begin to address this inequality.

Resources online for more information

• UK Marriage, cohabitation and civil partnerships
• FAQs about the (UK) Civil Partnership Act of 2004
• Background and Laws on Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage
• FAQs about gay couples getting married Massachusetts
• Human Rights Campaign Marriage and Recognition portal

(This article viewed 854 times.)
Previous article: Royal Mail's Strike: Fire them all
Next article: Can you really Let Yourself Go when on holiday?