iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Straight British Couple Want 'Gay' Partnership

JILL LAWLESS   11/ 9/10 09:28 AM ET   AP

Civil Partnership

LONDON — Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle are in love and want to tie the knot – but they don't want to get married.

The 26-year-old Londoners think they should be allowed to have a civil partnership, a form of legal union available in Britain only to same-sex couples.

On Tuesday, after having their application to form a civil partnership rejected by officials at their local town hall in Islington, north London, they said they will go to court to win the right. They are being backed by gay rights activists, who hope a ruling that allows straight couples the right to a civil partnership would mean, in turn, that gay couples have the right to wed.

"The titles of husband and wife and all the things that pop into people's heads when you say you're getting married don't appeal to us," said Doyle, a student. "In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners – we don't feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that."

Marriage and civil partnership are virtually identical in law, and activists argue both should be open to all couples.

"We think it's time there was one law for everyone," said activist Peter Tatchell, who is organizing the "Equal Love" campaign and has lined up eight couples – four gay, four straight – willing to take their cases to court.

"Denying heterosexual couples the right to have a civil partnership is heterophobic," he said.

Some legal experts think there is a strong case, because discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation infringes Britain's human rights law.

"How can the government justify this, when the legal rights attached to each legal institution are identical?" said law professor Robert Wintemute, who is advising the campaign. "For most purposes, the two institutions are identical – except for the name."

Britain introduced civil partnerships in 2005, giving gay couples the same legal protection, adoption and inheritance rights as heterosexual married partners – but not the label of marriage.

The Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Portugal and Spain have legalized same-sex marriage, while Germany, France, Austria and Switzerland have laws similar to Britain's.

The British compromise was welcomed by many. Thousands of couples have tied the civil partnership knot since then, in venues ranging from city halls to the Houses of Parliament.

But for some, the distinction still rankles.

"We really appreciate the civil partnerships," said Sharon Ferguson, a pastor in the Metropolitan Community Church who hopes to wed partner Franka Strietzel but has been turned down for a marriage license. "But particularly because of my Christian faith, it's marriage that I want."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

LONDON — Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle are in love and want to tie the knot – but they don't want to get married. The 26-year-old Londoners think they should be allowed to have a civil ...
LONDON — Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle are in love and want to tie the knot – but they don't want to get married. The 26-year-old Londoners think they should be allowed to have a civil ...
Filed by Cara Parks  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 134
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel Wilkes
02:33 PM on 11/27/2010
I think this is a wonderful idea, and I completely understand straight couples who might wish to gain legal recognition for their relationship without having to call it marriage. Personally I can distinguish between religious and civil marriage, and I hope to make any future same sex marriage my own, without reference to the old flaws of the institution.

The simple fact is that the current "separate but equal" system is a visible sign of lingering discrimination and a way of denying people freedom of choice. It says to same sex couples- "we have to create a special category just for your lifelong partnerships because they aren't deserving of the title marriage." Why not? I ask. There is no justification for this.

The best the last government could come up with was to say that they wanted to avoid a religious argument. Well that's ridiculous- civil marriage is completely free of religion which renders any religious argument against same sex civil marriage irrelevant. In addition if a particular religion- such as the Society of Friends (Quakers) or the Unitarianism or liberal Judaism- wishes to perform same sex civil marriages then it should be permitted to do so- which is in line with their particular religious beliefs. Surely allowing religions freedom to marry as their conscience dictates is the best way of avoiding religious argument?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
JonB2057
Think, it ain't illegal yet!
08:07 PM on 11/12/2010
Hello!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andra Claudia Garcia
Avant-Garde Journalist
03:20 AM on 11/11/2010
I highly doubt that gays will be allowed to marry because some straights want to be different and get a civil-union.
07:42 PM on 11/10/2010
They don't feel like husband and wife but civil partners? What's the difference? Aren't both legal contracts? Do they not like the word husband or wife? If a civil partnership is about same sex couples getting the same rights as heterosexual couples does this mean same sex couples don't want to be considered 'married' but civilly partnered? An intimate relationship between two people is what the two people make it, why do they care about labels so much?

And really, who cares what Peter Tatchell says?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Gay Pagan Man, Living Happily With Husband
04:41 PM on 11/12/2010
Fanned and faved. Tatchell is an idiot!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KIVPossum
Moldova Marsupial
06:21 PM on 11/10/2010
Just stop marriages. Have civil unions that create a legal union of two people. If people want a 'marriage', find a church to do it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thariax
03:24 PM on 11/10/2010
This is brilliant!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:14 PM on 11/10/2010
I mean end of the day it's about different combos of penes and vaginae... if they are not all the same they are all different
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mik McAllister
03:24 PM on 11/10/2010
Then why are you allowed to apply for the same jobs as someone with different plumbing?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:09 PM on 11/10/2010
if a couple that had a child separated and that child was a nursing infant; would both have equal rights to custody of the child? assume that both were equal in every other way except that one was the father and one was the mother; if that was the only difference between them, would that mean the law should treat them exactly equal in terms of the nursing infant, even though one parent had the capacity to nurse (breastfeed) while the other did not?

one law for everyone sounds great... but in practicale terms, people are created different in terms of the sexual organs they are born with and that makes them different (not in-equal, merely different); it therefore stands to reason that three possible different couplings are possible when uniting two organs: penis/vagina, penis/penis and vagina/vagina

I see no harm in having a law for each since essentially each is a different thing
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:18 PM on 11/10/2010
a law for each union type I mean, not for each independent organ

:-)

I dunno, being in a hetrosexual relationship I dont know what special rules may apply if a couple is gay, what the nroms of that life is, and possibly those norms and customs are different for lesbian couples?

as for the name, call each whatever you want, just dont try to force all possibilities into one form since it might not fit well or work well for each combo...

maybe trying to be too rational?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mik McAllister
03:25 PM on 11/10/2010
"I see no harm in having a law for each since essentially each is a different thing "

We should alos have different laws for different corporations, because each is a different thing.

Microsoft and AIG are totally different. Why should they be governed by the same laws?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MohammedAbbasi
Co-Director, Association of British Muslims
02:58 PM on 11/10/2010
"Denying heterosexual couples the right to have a civil partnership is heterophobic,"

Love it!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:53 PM on 11/10/2010
More power to them!

I love it!
02:49 PM on 11/10/2010
I enjoy Monty Python, but this is clearly not one of their better episodes…
photo
relians
the interconnectedness of all things
02:40 PM on 11/10/2010
spot on! cheers!
feuille0d0erable
Empty is my micro-bio
02:03 PM on 11/10/2010
How gobsmackingly ironic. The Brits have such an unparalleled sense of the ridiculous.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DiGil
02:01 PM on 11/10/2010
Abolish state marriages in the US. Marriage is a religious institution. The State should recognize civil unions for all people. If you want to be "married" go talk to your priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, or whatever about it and leave The State out of your religious affairs, where it belongs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason N
Proud Firebagger Lefty
02:25 PM on 11/10/2010
"Marriage is a religious institution."

Sorry, history says you're wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mik McAllister
03:23 PM on 11/10/2010
Actually, marriage was created by religion.

Marriage as accepted now was created solely to insure that offspring was recognized as legitimate for inheritance purposes. The Church was involved because inheritance was necessary to fill their coffers.

Most wealthy (and aristocratic) families would send at least one son to the clergy. When the parents died, their assets would go to legitimate offspring. The con in the Church was forbidden from receiving the inheritance, so his share would go to the church.

Legitimacy of offspring has always been a religious issue, and only a religious issue.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DiGil
03:50 PM on 11/10/2010
Agree with Mik. State recognition of a religious institution doesn't make that institution any less religious. According to the Roman Catholic Church, the SACRAMENT of Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and god. In what way is this not a religious institution?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeTroll
Prove your own claims. I'm not your intern.
01:22 PM on 11/10/2010
All governments need to create and fund a Department of Semantics for cases like this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mik McAllister
03:23 PM on 11/10/2010
There you go, advocating for big government again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeTroll
Prove your own claims. I'm not your intern.
08:13 PM on 11/10/2010
Well, something as important as Semantics can hardly be left to the private sector.