[BITList] partnership

[CT's]

thanks, hugh

I didn't know about the civil partnership act - seems logical.
but the rule REQUIRING the parties be of the same sex is interesting - to appease those who hold the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman [or a woman and a man] as the "best"?
apparently not wanting to condone "shacking up"?

ct


From: HUGH 
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 1:36 PM
To: bitlist at lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com 
Subject: Re: [BITList] more racism hale and hearty in Louisiana


Colin,

They are called civil partnerships, marriage being already spoken for in connection with the more usual arrangement.  As I understand it, the rationale was basically that such couples should have the same legal rights and financial obligations as between married couples.  And, as you surmise, much Bible was thumped in the background.  The Civil Partnership Act 2004 deals with the constituent parts of the UK separately, but I assume the rules are pretty much the same throughout the realm. One rule that caused much comment is the one that requires the parties to be of the same sex.  This was seen as disadvantageous to different sex couples who thought a civil partnership a better option than marriage.  Why, I cannot say.  So there you are.

Hugh.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe from this email List, send an email to:
BITList-unsubscribe at lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com

BITList mailing list
BITList at lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com
http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/mailman/listinfo/bitlist

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/pipermail/bitlist/attachments/20091017/f5dd15a4/attachment.shtml