Talk:Civil partnership in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Differences with Marriage?[edit]

The article hints that there might be some minor differences with marriage. E.g. rights are not "identical" with marriage - they "mirror" those of marriage, while partnership dissolution is only "similar" to divorce. A section outlining any differences would be useful. If there are no differences, then the language in the article should make that clearer. The difference (or not) between marriage and civil partnership is a hot topic, so this distinction is worthy of discussion. Fig (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it a "hot topic"? Can't say I've heard it mentioned much around the water-cooler. Worthy of discussion, perhaps tho it doesn't seem to have raised much chatter here. But, whatever...
You claim that the article hints there are differences, but you don't provide us with examples. The article states specifically in Para 1 that the rights and responsibilities are identical to civil marriage. The word "mirror" is used as this was a word that appeared in much of the government's briefing documentation: its use is therefore reasonable.
Aside from the blindingly obvious (both spouses being of the same gender) there's something trivial about same-sex spouses not receiving titles if their partner is made a peer. And the non-religious nature, but again it's a civil process, so no big surprise there. As far as "differences" go, that's pretty much the sum of it - and both are mentioned in the body of the text anyway.
Dissolution is actually said to be "akin" to divorce. Differences in the dissolution process are so slight as to be negligible, mainly relating to terminology.
Hope that helps.
81.151.32.223 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In this entry, there is the statement that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 gives same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. This is not true as there are a number of differences between the two unions and their consequences.

The processes of civil marriage and civil partnership are different. At both, a Licensed Registrar officiates, but whereas there is set wording at a marriage that has to be articulated, at a civil partnership there is set wording, but there is no requirement for it to be said, it merely has to be read by both parties. Indeed, although a civil wedding differs from a religious wedding in that one is a ceremony and the other a service, a civil partnership differs from a civil wedding on the basis that the latter requires no ceremony to take place at all. A civil partnership is merely an agreement that has to be signed by the parties and a Licensed Registrar and this can be done in silence.

Couples who marry become spouses whereas couples who register their civil partnership become civil partners. The rights of spouses regarding survivor pensions in certain final salary pension schemes do not extend to civil partners. Thus, it can arise that the surviving civil partner of a person who has contributed to such a scheme has no entitlement to a survivor’s pension from the scheme, but a surviving spouse is entitled to a widow’s or widower’s pension.

Although access to life insurance is equalised between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, this is not true of some other types of insurance. For example, some underwriters of car insurance policies offer lower premiums to married couples but do not offer lower rates to civil partners. Indeed, some refuse to allow civil partners to specify their marital status on insurance application forms and in doing so deny civil partners the opportunity to use their services at all. [I’d like a lawyer to tell me if this contravenes the Equality Act 2006 that outlaws discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services].

TimChapman (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Tim Chapman

Forgive me for pointing out the blindingly obvious, but how does any of the above count as a difference in "rights and responsibilities"? Being called a spouse or civil partner is neither a right nor responsibility. (And please provide a reference from either the CPA or the Marriage Act as I have seen this claimed nowhere else.)
Can you provide a 3rd party ref for the pension/insurance-related examples you provide? Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three bits of legislation that would prevent such abuses. I'm part of a gay legal firm in central London, and I would relish acquainting these firms with the law of the land! Obviously, as such discrimination is not legal, it cannot be listed as a legitimate difference in the article. :-) 81.151.38.166 (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the process of registering a civil partnership at the Register Office because my understanding and experience is that civil partners have the right to insist that no ceremony takes place whereas same-sex couples getting married are obliged to have some form of ceremony. This, then, is one difference between the rights and responsibilities of civil partners and married people, albeit a small one.

Contrary to your assertion, I did not claim that being called a civil partner or a spouse was a right under the CPA or the Marriage Act. Without reference to legislation, I stated the fact that couples who marry become spouses and couples who register their civil partnership become civil partners. I made this statement in order to introduce the terminology so that I could use it to demonstrate how the rights of civil partners are different to those of spouses in relation to certain final salary pension schemes.

Given that you are part of a gay legal firm, assuming you are qualified, you’ll already be aware that legislation obliges certain company pension schemes to equalise benefits for spouses and civil partners, but only from 5th December 2005. This means that, for example, a single person who is a member of such a scheme could have made contributions into a pension fund for, say, 25 years then, in June 2006, become a civil partner. Any subsequent surviving civil partner pension from the fund will be based only on the member’s contributions from 5th December 2005 – ignoring the previous 25 years’ worth of contributions. However, had the member become a spouse in June 2006 through marriage, then any surviving spouse’s pension would be based on the entire contributions record, resulting in a substantially greater widow’s or widower’s pension over that of a surviving civil partner’s. If that’s not a difference between the rights of civil partners and those of married people, then I don’t know what is.

The above example reflects my own experience. I worked for a large plc for many years and on becoming a civil partner was advised that the 5th December 2005 cut-off applied. However, by using the company’s own claim to be an equal opportunities employer, I mounted a challenge and eventually the trustees of my pension scheme agreed to treat civil partners the same as spouses. But this was nevertheless a matter for the trustees’ discretion rather than the right that spouses have under the scheme. As the pension scheme is acting within the law, I shall not name it. Nevertheless, I know that there is at least one other final salary pension scheme which goes no further than the legislation requires because I read a letter in Gay Times a while back where a civil partner was complaining about this very thing – his scheme confirmed that they will ignore his contributions prior to 5th December 2005 in calculating the pension his civil partner will receive in the event of his death. I wrote to GT to try to contact this person and although my letter was published, he never replied, so I do not know the name of his pension scheme. But shame on the legislators who have allowed this to happen.

With regard to car insurers, a recent email to me from moneysupermarket.com advised “To confirm whether the lower premiums applied to Married couples also applies to a Civil Partnership you will have to contact the Car Insurer provided”. So here we have a player in the industry confirming that married people receive favourable treatment. My experience is that my premiums were higher when I was single than they would have been had I been married (even though my partner and I have been together since the late 1970s). Of course, this would also have applied to an unmarried same-sex couple, but they’ve always had the opportunity to gain marital rights by, er, getting married! There was nothing I could do to get them because I could not, and still cannot, marry my partner. I assumed that when I became a civil partner, I would have access to the same lower “married” premiums without difficulty. Not so, many insurance companies, such as Churchill and Saga to name two, do not even list civil partnership as an option.

Other service providers are also guilty of this. Abbey plc requires marital status information on its savings account online application forms but gives no option for civil partners. Ditto Citi Financial Europe plc and Egg plc in relation to their online applications for credit cards.

I am interested to read that you would relish the opportunity to tackle firms who do not comply with legislation in this area. If, as a gay man, my only option to gain legal recognition of my relationship with my male partner was to register a civil partnership and I then find my access to services barred as a consequence of my marital status, is that not discrimination against me on the basis of my sexual orientation? If so, isn’t that in breach of the Equality Act 2006? As these questions are outside the scope of this article, will you be good enough to contact me at tim.chapman@inbox.com as I’d be very interested in a legal professional’s take on this?

TimChapman (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)TimChapman

Hi Tim,
For the record, I was called to the bar in 1997.
You said "civil partners have the right to insist that no ceremony takes place whereas same-sex couples getting married are obliged to have some form of ceremony". But civil partners are same-sex couples. Am I missing something (Monday mornings not being my best time) as I can't make sense of this sentence? For the sake of clarity, there is no obligation to have a ceremony at a civil partnership: if you don't want one, don't have one. However, this may be conflating a procedural/administrative matter with a "right" and legally these are far from being the same thing. Whatever, the procedural differences are listed in the body of the article.
You are correct re the "from December 2005" date, however the right to the benefit itself matches that obtained by entering a civil marriage. And the 12/05 start date is far from universal - my partner (assuming he survives me) will receive the full benefit of my umpteen years of contributions when I finally conk out. Nevertheless, if you want to add this information to the article, find a few good third party refs and go right ahead.
As you probably know, on WP we don't view personal experiences as an acceptable source. Nevertheless the quote from moneysupermarket.com is clearly shorthand for "don't know, don't care, we just provide you with a cheap quote and our commission ain't enough to provide you with customer service, chum- ask your actual insurance provider" : this clearly does not equate to "confirming that married people receive favourable treatment". And did you do as they suggest and actually contact your provider? - you don't say.
FYI, if a form (online or otherwise) has yet to be updated to take account of the Act's passing, you are at liberty to either state that you are married or (if it's a paper form) cross though the offending word and write "civil partnership". It is completely legal. My own bank, Barclays, is very good in this respect, but every now and then a form/pro-forma letter will arrive that has not received the appropriate post-CPA tweak. It happens: ignore it, tick "married" or cross though and carry on regardless.
"... my access to services barred as a consequence of my marital status, is that not discrimination against me on the basis of my sexual orientation? "
Yes, that would be so - but based on what you have said, you are not in fact being denied any service. I'm sorry, but personalised legal advice would have to be offered in the usual, businesslike way. :-)
We seem to have wandered away from the article itself into the realm of personal experience. We need to be careful that this doesn't descend into chat.
81.151.38.166 (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the trouble to reply again. The sentence that didn’t make sense was entirely my error, I meant to say “opposite-sex couples getting married”. I do apologise.

You say that, notwithstanding the 12/05 date, the right to the benefit itself matches that obtained by entering into a civil marriage. It may be that both civil partners and spouses gain rights to survivors’ pensions for their partners should they predecease them, but is it really the same right when one partner ends up getting far more money than the other? They both gain a right to the pension accrued from 12/05 but only the spouse gains the right to, as you put it, the full benefit of umpteen years of contributions.

You’re right that there’s a lot of personal experience in my posts and I seem to have misunderstood the nature of this forum. I guess that my experience to date of civil partnership has re-enforced my belief from the outset that we should not have been fobbed off with civil partnership but should simply have been allowed to get married like everyone else – then equality would have been delivered at a stroke; there would be no differences in relation to procedures, administration or rights and responsibilities and I would not be wasting my time being annoyed by them. Even this WP article would not need to exist - don’t forget the thing that started this off for me was the statement on WP that civil partners have identical rights and responsibilities to people in a civil marriage. As I have said, that statement is not true - my civil partner’s pension will be at someone’s discretion whereas if we were married it would be his right. They are not identical and that is not equality.

I don’t find it acceptable for civil partners to have to state that they are married in order to access services even if it is completely legal (and can you cite the legislation that confirms this?). With online forms, it’s not possible to cross out “married” and insert “civil partner” because one is obliged to select from available options in a pick-list, yet the application cannot proceed otherwise. I’m sure nobody would say to married people, “oh just tick something you’re not and carry on regardless”. If a form that asked about ethnicity and, in relation to skin colour, omitted black you would not suggest that a black person should just tick white, would you? If I was denied the right to use the marriage word at the Registry Office, I’m not willing to use it subsequently. I’ll be happy to call it marriage when they issue me with a marriage certificate. Meanwhile, I suggest that these organisations are, consequently, barring my access to their services on the basis of something that arises out of my sexual orientation. Not only do they have to provide their services on an equal basis, they also have to provide access to them on an equal basis. So, if group one sails straight through the process without difficulty but group two encounters obstacles, whether insurmountable or not, then they’re not offering equal access. There’s still stuff that needs fixing and if we all just pretend that what we’ve got now is okay, then it’ll stay broken.

I do agree, however, that we’re descending into chat so I guess I should stop here. It’s a shame we cannot chat offline but I do understand. Thank you for your input.

Tim Chapman —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimChapman (talkcontribs) 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tim -
Please speak with an independent financial adviser (they are usually excellent value, IMHO) or your Citizens' Advice Bureau if you believe your pension pay-out will be at the whim of some unnamed authority.
If you choose not to enter "married" on e-forms on a point of principle, that is your choice. Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face, but... There is no "legislation" to cite, however there are a number of cases where it has been cited in the record. If I were less of a lazy ass and if it wasn't 2 minutes to knocking off time on a damp and gloomy Monday ...
No, not all web sites are as good as they could be (though the vast majority have caught up) but such is the way of the world. I'm afraid the rest is digressing into a socio-political discussion and you're right, it's best avoided.
All the best to you and yours. 86.168.157.136 (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with Tim that the rights under marriage and civil partnership are not equal. They may be deemed small but that is not a good basis for disregarding them. The anonymous lawyer suggests that certain things are not rights (the right to not have a ceremony, the right to use the word 'husband' etc.) but they patently are. It is irrelevant if they are not 'rights' in some contrived legal sense. They are clearly rights in the standard English use of the word. Wikipedia is not a legal forum. (Tim, you are also quite correct to boycott the word 'marriage' when you have not been allowed one.) Salopian (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:JARGON is not absolute (it's an essay, not a policy), but it does suggest using the common sense, not the technical legal sense of words, particularly when those usages are unqualified. As such I've changed the lede to say "almost" entirely. This does not reflect any sense on my part that the difference is large, quite the contrary, it is, generally speaking, a quite trivial difference. And yet it is one, a mathematician would not say that 1.999999999993 is 2, although one might say that they were "almost identical." If you'd like to further qualify "almost identical", e.g., "identical except for the most trivial differences", or approach making this point otherwise, I'll have no issue. Rather than judging for our readers what is or isn't such a trivial difference that we just ignore that it exists entirely for them, it's more accurate (and emphasizes just how close the two institutions are, I'll add) to be explicit about the differences. --Joe Decker (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the almost from the lead as I didn't think it'd be controversial, but it clearly is so I think I should justify it. The UK courts have ruled that civil partnerships give the same rights as marriage, not that they are almost the same. If forms having errors on them and missing the civil partnership as an option that is a mistake on the form - you can complain to the person setting the form, or you can tick the obvious alternative answer to the question which is "married". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I've explained the issue before, but here goes. At least one signficant difference exists in legal rights in the common usage of the word rights (and please see WP:JARGON before saying that we should be talking about the legal sense of the word rights) is the use of legally-established courtesy titles for partners of peers. As the couple involved does not, I presume, include a peer, the statement your citation that the rights accorded to them are equal does not necessarily generalize to all civil partnerships. The article also makes a statement that "Civil partnerships give the same legal rights as marriage on issues such as finances and next of kin.", but the qualifying final clause leaves open the possiblity of other differences. The article itself here lists such a difference and sources it, the issue was brought up with respect to the partner of Sir Elton John, the article on courtesty titles appears to substantiate my understanding that such titles are established as a matter of law as well as what a normal indivual would call courtesy (I'm open to correction on this point.) Finally, it has happened in other areas of civil partnership-like arrangements that statements such as "rights equal to marriage" have provided unequal rights in other jurisdictions for a variety of technical, legal reasons about what the word "rights" means in a legal, rather than a commonplace sense. I don't know if that is part of the issue here or not, but you can look at (say) the domestic partnership arrangements in California or Nevada (the pages on those exist here) to see those in play." I will not edit war (nor may I, says WP:3RR) this, but I stand by my statement that the article as stands is, and I admit this is pedantic, incorrect. If you want to continue discussion further, poke me on my talk page, I'm very irregular in my editing and and may miss future followups here. Thanks for your patience.--Joe Decker (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted my change and added a note which hopefully explains the minor differences. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Eraserhead1, thank you, that's great. I've just reverted someone reverting your change and asked them to return here to discuss the issue if they wish to rerevert it. --Joe Decker (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Parentage legislation[edit]

From 1 May 2009, IVF, surrogacy and other parentage rights and even access rights will be granted to all couples regardless of sexual orientation, marital or relationship status or gender of the partners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your point? If any... 86.165.34.60 (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Expansion[edit]

This article is extremely limited, barely saying anything other than the mechanics of the legislation. It ought to have sections on the subsequent impact on society (approval rates amongst the population/proportion of civil-partnered couples remaining together etc. etc.) and the attitude to civil partnerships from those favouring equal marriage and/or equal partnership, including political parties (Lib Dems for the former, Greens for both). Salopian (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added some basic statistics relating to the uptake of Civil Partnerships in British Consulates - also indicating the Consulates which currently will perform CP ceremonies. Re the impact on society, the Lillian Ladele case and the opening up of religious venues for CP ceremonies (which is largely misunderstood) could be added too.

Paul Jeffrey Thompson 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso (talkcontribs)

Hi, I’ve been working on a biographic entry about Dr. Peter Scott-Morgan who’s notable for non-LGBT issues – though in my research I’ve just discovered he also helped change same-sex immigration law in the USA! The BBC coverage about him having been the first civil partner in Devon (with his partner of 27 years) was complete news to me and a complete other side to what’s generally reported about him. So I thought it might be interesting to add this bridge between the two very-different entries. Hope that’s helpful and OK.LisaNotsimpson (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested Lede Edit[edit]

For clarity, I'm opening a new section. I have provided a corrected lede multiple times (as had another user, who created a different wording) which reflects the fact that the legally-entitled courtesy titles given to spouses of peers, not being available to civil partners of peers, represent a difference in the rights (in the general sense of the word) between the two institutions. I have cited WP:JARGON as a policy statement suggesting that the general sense, rather than the technical legal sense, is the most appropriate usage of the word "rights" in this Wikipedia article. An anonymous user at 86.172.196.114 has reverted these changes 3-4 times. I've asked the matter be discussed here on the Talk page with respect to the specific points I've made, and at this time I repeat my request. --Joe Decker (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Joe. Point 1: "corrected" implies that the lead is incorrect, which has not been established. 2) You do not wiki-link to WP:JARGON. It is a while since I'd seen it, so I had a look - the only page I can find is for a redundant policy. WP:JARGON Perhaps you would be kind enough to link to the up-to-date policy, as it is the main support for your argument. Apologies if this message is poorly formatted. My iPhone seems to have taken a dislike to WPs talk pages for some reason and is failing to display them correctly. 86.172.196.114 talk) 07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. "Comparable" ? I am not suggesting that we adopt it at this stage (the case for changing the long-standing wording has yet to be made) I'm simply offering it as a possibility now, while the word is in my head. 86.172.196.114 (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for responding! (Point 1, yeah, I had intended this as an expression of my intent, I didn't mean to beg the question.) Your point 2 is very much on point, and I apologize for my confusion there, it appears that WP:JARGON has been deprecated relatively recently. I will work to reframe my argument in terms of the relevant replacement, which appears to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MTAA -- as an essay, that replacement is at best guidance, which is a weakness to my argument.
Roughly speaking, my argument boils down to this. There are technical meanings to the words "rights", and commonplace ones. It is my experience that these meanings offer differ in small but meaningful ways. To point at an analagous situation, a difference in the age in which one can get a California marriage vs. a California domestic partnership is not considered a "right" in the legal sense in that state, but it is very much a "right" in the general sense that people use the word. In the California example, the average reader is more likely to be familiar with the commonplace meaning rather than the legal meaning, I believe, and essays like the one I cite above seem to suggest, that there should be a presumption that the commonplace meaning be preferred. I'm arguing that the same situation appears here. The courtesy title is incredibly minor, but is in fact a difference. Where is it that you believe I've gone astray in this argument? Last minute addition b/c I just saw your suggestion: I have no problems at all with comparable. --Joe Decker (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
While I do not wish to pre-empt discussion, if the argument has changed from one of policy to one of opinion and belief and presumption (and we have no possible way to know what "the average reader" may or may not think) I would suggest that this matter is laid to one side until a relevant policy is in force. There is a policy on semantics that (I think) would support my opinion, but this ****ing iPhone is driving me nuts, and I hope you'll spare me the need to go in search of it, instead agreeing that with no policy back-up (at this time) the long-standing wording can remain pro-tem86.172.196.114 (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I sympathize, I have an iPhone too I'll leave the current wording until we finish the discussion and achieve consensus to do so (if we do in fact achieve that), if that takes a handful of days or more that's no problem. It's about 1:30am here, I should be heading to bed myself. --Joe Decker (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Joe, on reflection there seems to be no reason not to try "comparable" - it's a good fit. Let's try it and see if the article's original authors want to change it. If they do, fine, we'll debate it. If not, the word's a pretty good fit.Good night! 86.172.196.114 (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What about comparable with the note? That seems to be the best solution to me. Though comparable alone isn't too bad so I'm not bothered if its just that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Note seems superfluous. It just repeats text from the article body. 86.172.196.114 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay without the note, too. --Joe Decker (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Applicability to British Overseas Territories?[edit]

Does anyone know if civil partnerships are available in British Overseas Territories, or perhaps in some of the territories that have less legislative autonomy, or what? I ask because Wikipedia's world map of laws on the subject has blue coloring (i.e. civil partnerships recognized) for Pitcairn Island and a couple of islands in the Lesser Antilles that I believe are Anguilla and Montserrat, but other BOT (e.g. Bermuda, the Caymans) are grey (i.e. no partnerships are recognized). There doesn't seem to be any info on the relevant recognition of same-sex unions article or in this article. --Jfruh (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Some of the overseas territories have their own system of government, and localised laws.
None of them have adopted nor have been forced to adopt UK Civil Partnerships as yet.
Some still have sodomy laws.
*Anguilla -  have sodomy laws
*Bermuda - NO - sodomy laws
*the British Antarctic Territory - no population / no elected government.
*the British Indian Ocean Territory - no population / no elected government.
*the British Virgin Islands - have sodomy laws punishable with up to life imprisonment at the discretion of the judge. 
*the Cayman Islands - limited equal rights
*the Falkland Islands - homosexuality is legal
*Gibraltar -  has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 18 for homosexuals, and 16 for heterosexuals.
*Montserrat  - have sodomy laws
*Saint Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, - homosexuality is legal
*the Turks and Caicos Islands - have sodomy laws
*the Pitcairn Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, 
PjThompso 11:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso (talkcontribs)


The Falkland Islands are looking at offering Civil Partnerships under UK legislation. This is possible and should come into action in September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.131.38 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Are there any confirmed sources available regarding the aforementioned comment about the Falklands? Is it confirmed that a Civil Partnerships law is currently under discussion in that territory? Would this be an in-house Falklands law (similar to what has occurred on the Isle of Man) allowing civil partnerships to be performed in the islands? Or would this simply be a resolution recognizing civil partnerships performed in the UK? Crm18 (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, I've added a section to the article about British crown dependencies and overseas territories, because I feel it's something unlikely to be covered adequately elsewhere and because the UK is, ultimately, sovereign. The UK could force territories' hands if desired, and if not doing so is ever deemed contrary to EU law in the future, probably will. So far, to my knowledge, only the Isle of Man and Jersey have implemented CP legislation; Guernsey is looking into it. I can't find any confirmation about the Falklands at present, and certainly some of the Caribbean territories have been openly against the prospect of CPs (most vocally, the Caymans). But I think the whole area of the OTs will be worth watching on this subject in the years to come. Bradpogo (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Differences?[edit]

A section describing the differences between CP and traditional marriage would be useful. As someone above said, the article hints at there being some differences but doesn't really say what. From what I can gather there are only a few differences - 1. it isn't called marriage, 2. it is only available to people of the same sex, 3. it can't be performed in a place of worship (unless that has now changed) and 4. the issue about hereditary titles which isn't really of much importance. Is that it? How does this compare to CPs in other countries? Most don't allow for custody of children and many have limits on insurance rights and inheritance. A proper comparison with traditional marriage and between different countries is needed. Plus how amazing is it that it will be a Conservative government who finally open marriage to everybody? Just 20 years ago they didn't even consider gay people to be normal yet they've come so far since (shame about the economic mess though).--79.34.11.198 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Real differences[edit]

1. Civil partnerships are not recognised anywhere else in the world. This can cause major problems with immigration and holidays. Even countries which have same-sex marriage or civil unions do not recognise British civil partnerships, because they are not the same. Marriage, on the other hand, is recognised universally.

2. Pension differences, which actually continue an inequality in the law that already existed. If a married person dies, their spouse is entitled to a higher amount from their pension if they are a widow than if they are a widower. If a person in a civil partnership dies, their partner is treated as a married man and receives the lower amount, regardless of their actual gender.

3. By calling it "civil partnership" instead of "marriage", this means that people in a civil partnership have to out themselves as LGBT every time they so much as tick a box on a form which lists civil partnership separately from marriage. We would not ask people to identify on such forms if they were in a mixed-race or mixed-faith relationship.

4. A marriage can be performed in a house of worship and be legally binding. A civil partnership is purely civil, and is not permitted to contain any religious content. And yes, there are several religions which have openly lobbied for the ability to marry same-sex couples, namely Reform Judaism, Liberal Judaism, Quakerism (the Society of Friends), and Unitarianism.

5. There is no appropriate title for a woman in a civil partnership: neither "Miss" nor "Mrs" apply. "Ms" is still not used all that much, and many organisations simply do not recognise it as an option (trust me, I've been called "Mrs" or "Miss" more times than I've been called "Ms", even though I make a point of insisting that my title is "Ms". This is actually a problem for all women who are neither single nor married, for instance if they are living with their partner, or any woman who does not wish to reveal her marital status in her title).

6. Language is also lacking in other areas: there is no verb analagous to "marry", so you can't say "I got civil-partnered last year". "Civil partner" is too clunky for everyday use (I have never encountered a single person who refers to their partner in that way), and few people accept the terms "husband", "wife" or "spouse" for same-sex couples. This reflects a continuing social inequality where civil partnerships are seen as being inferior to marriage.

Elettaria (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I seem to recall that, in a case specific perhaps to Elton John's partner, courtesy titles are not extended to same-sex partners of ... http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/20/sbt.01.html --j⚛e deckertalk 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Overseas territories (specifically Gibraltar)[edit]

Gibraltar has recently legalised a civil partnership bill which has been given Royal Assent. I was wondering if the wording in the Overseas Territories section of the article should therefore be changed? Specifically when it says "none of the overse... etc." which is now incorrect Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Effect of same-sex marriage legislation on the take-up of civil partnerships[edit]

I came to this article looking to see if the number of couples opting for CP was in decline following the equalisation of the marriage laws in England & Wales, but as yet there seems to be no information about that. It would be interesting to know if CP is now effectively moribund - are there any figures available anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.156.255.22 (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civil partnership in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civil partnership in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)