Talk:Civil partnership in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copyvio?

I've just copyedited the chunk of legalese under "Law and procedure under the Civil Partnership Act". The text originally appeared in this diff, added by an anonymous editor. The original text looks like it was cut-and-pasted from somewhere else; it even includes entitites for curly quotes (eg ‘). Why do I get the feeling that this is a copyvio? It reads like a lawyer's summary of the bill, which was already an act by the time the text was added - making me even more suspicious. I haven't been able to find a source for the text, however. Comments? -- Avaragado 22:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that you have a point, even though Google & Yahoo only find the Wikipedia article. I suppose using the code for curly braces isn't knock-down proof (I use codes all the time, partly because I write my own HTML code for my Web site, and it's second nature). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was the author of the original chunk of legalese. I am a law student and that was part of a practice essay I wrote. I am sorry that i did not do much formatting. Anyway, the essay was written when the civil partnership act was still a bill, so the article uses 'clause' instead of 'sections'. Nevertheless I am quite confident that the content of the ariticle is accurate because when i was writing the essay, the bill was just about to receive royal assent.

In short, there are no copyright issues here.

Pregnancy?

According to clause 50 of the CPB, a civil partnership is voidable if any of the following is shown:... 'applicant was pregnant by someone other than the respondent at the time of its formation;

Is that true? Since only same-sex couples are allowed to enter civil partnerships it'd be impossible for the applicant to be pregnangt by the respondant! (Alphaboi867 4 July 2005 21:59 (UTC))

I've just checked the Act and the clause is there. So it's true in that sense. We could be charitable and assume this is very forward-thinking legislation... Perhaps the clause was included in case the law is later amended to allow mixed-sex civil partnerships. -- Avaragado 5 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

I read that too: what about gender realignment cases? Socially, doesn't seem likely, but technically possible. Personally, I like to think of it as evidence that they did a fair-minded cut'n'paste job on the Marriage Act.

Surely it applies mostly to bisexual people. There are a lot of us about. 213.86.59.92 12:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Civil partnerships are available to opposite-sex couples. [1]. Also, this appears to mean that a lesbian rape victim cannot enter a civil partnership (or marriage) until after the pregnancy? Is this true? --Aaron McDaid 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, civil partnerships are available to 2 staight ment or 2 straight women. Both parties must be of the same-sex to enter a partnership, but consumation is not required. (Alphaboi867 18:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

Do you have an authoritative reference that verifies that? The article I linked to is written by a lawyer and says that opposite-sex couples are eligible to, and I'm inclined to believe that. --Aaron McDaid 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Doh! I was wrong [2]. It seems I have a few edits to undo! Aaron McDaid 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Name change?

Shouldn't this article now be renamed Civil partnership (United Kingdom)? --rossb 22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but to Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom to keep in consistent with other pages Maccoinnich 14:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made the change (having celebrated my own civil partnership on the 21st!) --rossb 05:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No it should not be merged. There is a clear differernce between Marriage and Civil Partnerships. 'Same Sex Marriage' is something many gay rights groups are still campaigning for. User:Spacepostman 17:15 GMT 23 December 2005

First couple (name amendment)

BBC News website refers to the first couple as Matthew Roche & Christopher Cramp, not Clamp, so I'm editing this page to bring it in line SP-KP 19:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I believe that the Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom article should be merged into this article, for the following reasons:

1. There isn't really much of a debate about the difference between civil partnerships and marriage, apart from the name itself. The couple bringing the legal action on the other page may believe it's important, but I think that can perfectly well be covered in a section on this page.
2. Most people on either side of the debate admit that it is marriage in all but name.
3. The distinction between marriage and civil partnership/union isn't that useful in any case - Vermont may well have same-sex marriage, but as it is only recognised at a state, and not federal level, in reality it gives fewer rights than Britain's "lesser" option.
4. Mostly, the whole debate can be better covered on one page.

• As an aside, I agree with the above proposal that this page should be moved to civil partnerships.

Maccoinnich 14:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. The controversy surrounding the topics and suchforth can't really be seperated. Morwen - Talk 14:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your argument, but (unless you're proposing just to do this for the two UK-related pages, which I don't think is the case based on what you've said above), this talk page perhaps isn't the best place for the discussion; you either need to find somewhere where all editors interested in civil unions / same-sex marriages will see it, or if you do want to host the discussion here, place notices on all relevant pages pointing people here SP-KP 19:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm just talking about the two UK pages. I don't see anything in Maccoinnich's comment to indicate otherwise. Morwen - Talk 11:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Morwen is correct - I am just talking about the two UK pages. In other countries the situations and arguments are different, and I haven't suggested anything for them. I'm actually a little confused about what would make you think I am talking about anywhere else. Would you now support the merge then, just for the two UK pages? Maccoinnich 15:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Maccoinnich. Thanks for clarifying (your point 3 was what misled me — I thought you were saying that because, in places outside Britain where same-sex marriages exist, they may not be as equal as Britain's civil partnerships are, that the whole subject worldwide couldn't be neatly separated into two). As I said, I've no problem with the merge itself. SP-KP 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I support both the merge and the name change to "civil partnerships" in the title. Rd232 ^talk 20:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the name change, as marriage and civil partnerships remain different legislation and it is too soon to tell, at less than one month in, whether there will be a material difference between the two states. Dev0347 18:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that this page be renamed, but that the material in the page Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom should be cut and pasted into the this page - basically, the debate is best covered in one page, and this is where it should be covered. How do you feel about that? Maccoinnich 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would oppose the merger. Civil Partnership is one thing (now an established institution), the controversy about same-sex marriage is another. I think that to have the same-sex marriage question discussed at length in the same article as civil partnership would just confuse the readers, particularly those not particularly up to date with the situation in the UK.--rossb 22:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the merger as they are different issues. Civil partnerships are not gay marriages. Secretlondon 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merger as well. Although civil partnerships might rightly be said to be marriage in all but name, the fact remains that civil partnerships are not marriages.

The fact is that we have to be consistent. We have articles on civil unions AND marriage for New Zealand, Portugal, France, and Ireland. The major point though, is the difference in status. Currently, the UK has civil partnerships. It does not have marriage. (One of the major practical distinctions is that Church of England priests are obligated to marry any couple that asks them to, whereas civil partnerships cannot include a religious service.)

As for changing the name to "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom", it should be reverted, the reason being that this page is part of the series on Civil Unions. The redirect meant that people sill got here either way, while maintaining consistency.

I really don't think there's a debate to be had here. (The reason I removed the merge tag was because there were no entries on this talk page about the subject in the new year). Carolynparrishfan 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed the Merge Tag as a) there seems to be little or no enthusiasm for such a merge and b) discusison seems to have drawn to a close months ago. Csm1701 10:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

father and son registering a partnership in Scotland?

According to the text of the act [3], it seems that in Scotland a father and son, (or mother and daughter, or 2 siblings), can marry if over 21 years old and they have never lived as father and son. The eligibility rules seem to be different in Scotland and also in Northern Ireland. I must admit I find the text quite confusing, and have probably got it wrong. --Aaron McDaid 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The rules of prohibited relationships apply in Scotland as well. That said in Scotland it is illegal for a great grandparent to marry/civil partner their great grandchild. Whereas in England and Wales this is perfectly legal!

"virtually identical"

Are there any differences between a civil partnership and a marriage in the UK, other than the gender combination, the name, and certain aspects of the registration? Is there any right available to (or duty incumbent upon) married couples that does not equally apply to civil partners? --Jfruh 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Peerages aren't affected. The civil partner of the Duke of Clarence would still be Mr. NN.

I think there still may be tax differences, CPs being less favourable.213.86.59.92 12:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no tax disadvantages to being in a CP. Aside from the trivial differences mentionedin the article, CPs mirror civil marriages. Csm1701 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this really a problem?

The following graph was recently added to the article:

Known Problems with having or forming a Civil Partnership

If you live together with someone who is yout partner, and the work and you become unemployed (In the UK) you will not be able to claim Benefit, its been proven, as the goventment say that if your partner works and earns a certain ammount they they are responsible for keeping you.

Is this really a "problem"? I'm assuming this is the same situation that an unemployed married person would find themselves in. While this info should probably be in the article somewhere, calling it a "problem" seems POV -- if it's a problem it's a problem with all of UK family law, not just with civil partnerships. --Jfruh 03:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a statutory obligation of support with the CP. However, I do feel that the "you will not be able to claim benefit" point is not quite correct.

The Benefits Agency has amended their regulations. Before the 5th December 2005 if you lived in a household with someone of the opposite sex (who was unrelated) you could be deemed to be living with them as if you were married to them. This meant that income and capital based benefits took into consideration the assets of the other opposite sex partner. Since 5th December if you live in a household with someone of the same sex who is un related to you; it is possible for you to be treated as living with someone as if you are civil partners. The same result will apply. However, for the reasons that I will go into now a claim for Jobseekers' Allowance should be made EVEN if you know you might not get it.

In any event in the UK there are two types of Jobseekers' Allowance. Income based and Contributions based. If you are unemployed you should claim this benefit. Claiming the benefit is treated as making National Insurance contributions. You need 11 years worth of them to qualify for 25% basic state pension and 44 years worth of them to qualify for a 100% basic state pension.

With Income based Jobseekers' Allowance you will always qualify for deemed National Insurance contributions, even if you do not actually receive anything! The Contributions based version is awarded in full even if your assets are such that you would not qualify for the Income based version!

Disagree with merging

I don't believe that civil partnership and same sex marriage should be merged, they are VERY different. Same sex marriage is not legal in this country and is a right denied to gay men and lesbians. The Civil partnership is a divisive hopefully temporary stop-gap and should remain as a seperate entry with same sex marriage kept also seperate until we can genuinely say we are entitled to that. (sorry for the rant, this really bothers me!) --Brideshead 21:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not in favour of the merger, but from an opposite point of view: I don't find the word "marriage", with its religious baggage, at all attractive, and I am very happy to be in a civil partnership, as of last Saturday. (I was even happier to have a minimalist ceremony, as we've been living together for 30 years and don't have anything to prove to each other.) If I had my way I'd abolish marriage and have civil partnerships for all.

Anyway, the same-sex marriage article consists of a) a preamble saying that it isn't available and b) a lengthy piece about the current case. I think the time to think about merger is after the conclusion of the case. It may be that if same-sex marriages become legal, civil partnerships will continue to exist for those who want them, so two articles will be required, but if civil partnerships are merged into marriage then merger is the obvious route to follow. If same-sex marriage continues to be ruled out, then two articles make more sense to me.

--GuillaumeTell 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merger. The CP and Same Sex Marriage are different entities, the resulting merged article would be confusing. Csm1701 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Marriage IS the union of a man and a woman; same-sex marriage is therefore tautological. The state recognises that fact in Britain, and has at least had the intellectual honesty to admit that it does not have the authority to redefine an institution older than written history.

OK, (a) this talk page is for discussing the article, not arguing the merits of same-sex marriage; (b) please sign your additions to the talk page by adding four tildes at the end of your posts, and (c) I don't think you know what a tautology is. Hint: it doesn't mean "a contradiction". --Jfruh 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, you're right, it's not a tautology, it's a contradiction in terms! But I see you keep referring to "same sex marriage" all the same.

Protests

I have deleted the following para from the Protests section:

Leading British Muslim Sir Iqbal Sacranie expressed his opposition to civil partnerships in a BBC Radio 4 discussion in January 2006. Sacranie called civil partnerships harmful and unacceptable and said "It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society — stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in."[7]

Sacranie's views do not constitute a 'protest', just one man's opinion. That opinion was widely opposed, yet that opposition is not mentioned by way of adding balance. I can't imagine one man's POV would be worthy of entry in a more traditional encyclopedia, so can't think why it's included here. Csm1701 10:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not one Man's point of view - it's the profound belief and understanding of an overwhelming majority of the world's people.

I've read some sweeping statements on Wikipedia, but the above is deserving of some sort of award! Have also just had a wander though your past contributions. (Contributions for 82.70.132.246) Your penchant for POV outbursts (the vast majority of which get rv'd) means you won't be with us for too much longer. Please remember to sign your contributions to this page. Csm1701 15:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the extremely POV homosexualist lobby polices Wikipedia with an almost Teutonic sedulous enthusiasm, rv'ing anything that contradicts their minority world view, usually in spite of the FACTS, with spectacular rapidity. Just wait until somebody changes the article to imply that CPs are only open to "Same sex couples". When they simply AREN'T.

Read the Act! Seriously, read it, thoroughly! Your claim that 'any two people' of the same sex can enter into a CP is specifically refuted by the Act. If you cannot be bothered to read the Act, just enlarge the photo showing on the main page. Spot anything? Your rant about 'homosexualist lobby' policing Wikipedia is arrant nonsense. Your outburst re 'Teutonic sedulous enthusiasm' is positively racist. If you continue to deliberately foist your POV on this article and to vent your spleen here, we will have no option but to view your actions as vandalism. Csm1701 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in knowing what exactly UK law has to say on the subject of marriage, and whether a man and a woman are explicitly required by law to be a couple, or to perform heterosexual acts on one another, in order to be married. --Jfruh 18:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You Read the Act!! I HAVE read the Act, from Beginning to End, and there is nothing stopping two people of the same sex entering into a Civil Partnership for whatever reasons they wish! It's not a MARRIAGE, which is the state recognising and codefieing something that exists outside of the state - a sexual and emotional monogamous bond between a man and a woman - it's a LEGAL CONTRACT between two people of the same sex.

There are a number of possible scenarios which nullify a marriage, such as when the marriage is being entered into for reasons such as immigration, tax, benefits, or whatever, or when either party has the inability to enter into and sustain a caring and considerate (or normal) marital relationship, be that emotional or sexual. None of these apply to civil partnerships. In fact, there is a thriving, and perfectly legal, industry at the moment, of heterosexual men partnering other heterosexual men from foreign countries so they can get citizenship. Were these to have been people of the opposite sex getting married, these would be illegal, and the state could use non-consummation as evidence in such a case.

So until these FACTS change, I am reverting the article to my changes, and until the law specifies that a relationship exists between the partners, it will be vandalism on YOUR PART to revert it to "Same Sex Couples". And after all, WikiPedia is concerned with THE FACTS, not YOUR PREJUDICE.

Ros Power 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ros, As shown below, I have requested Mediation. I am sorry that you have chosen to react before that process could even begin. I have no idea why you are referring to marriage, you clearly have not read Section 3 of the Act and now you RV even though a request for Mediation has been made. I apologise to other contributors that I am unwilling to breach etiquette by putting the article back in order before a 3rd Party Mediator has had his/her chance to assist. Csm1701 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

MEDIATION: I have requested mediation on the wording for this article. 82.70.132.246 please do not rv until Mediation is complete. Thanks. Csm1701 20:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases

Hi I am your mediatior for this discussion, please now direct all discussion to this page here so as not to cluttr up the article talk page. To keep the discussion sensible I will first ask Csm1701 some questions and then ask Ros Power to respond. Please try not to add any comments until it is your turn, thats just to keep the discussion cohesive!!! -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 22:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (this lists the facts to petition for divorce and nullity) do not list "marriage is being entered into for reasons such as immigration, tax, benefits, or whatever" as one of the grounds of nullity. I would suggest that you should read the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (applies to England and Wales) and you will see that this statement is wrong. Yes it is true that refusal or inability to consummate a marriage allows you to petition for nullity of the marriage. However, case law has made certain inroads into this. If it can be shown that there was agreement for a "chaste" marriage or problems with consummating the bond were known, you cannot obtain an annulment. I have acted on one case where the wife could show that they agreed never to sleep together. The husband's attempt to annul the marriage after 5 years was thrown out - there was no wilful refusal to consummate.

Until the late 1980s in Scotland and around 1993 in England and Wales marriage was treated as being implied consent (on the wife's part) to sexual intercourse during the validity of the marriage. Any attempt to charge a man with rape of his wife failed. The High Court in Scotland held that as a matter of public policy this implied consent did not have any further place in Scots Law. 5 years or so later a case came before the Court of Appeal in England and Wales. A similar reasoning was used. In short if a woman alleges she has been raped by her husband there is no longer any automatic defence to the charge in any part of Great Britain. I am not sure what the law of Northern Ireland says on this. This change in the law applies to all married couples, not just those that married after the decisions.

Marriage is also a legal contract between a man and woman unrelated to each other. If certain facts emerge - adultery, unreasonable behaviour, dessertion for two years, two years separation with agreement or five years separation then dissolution of the contract can be obtained. In the law of divorce adultery does not extend to homosexual acts or non-penetrative hetrosexual acts. These are unreasonable behaviour. Therefore it makes sense not to have adultery as a fact to support dissolution of a Civil Partnership.

The only reason that we have a religious element to marriage in the UK is because Parliament allows this to be the case. There is largely no difference between a civil partnership and civil marriage. Neither form of civil ceremony allows the use of any words suggesting a spiritual element. In Scotland there is no requirement that set words are used to get married. All that the Registrar will give to you are suggested words. In Scotland a couple will go through a religious or civil marriage service and at the end will sign a 'Marriage Schedule' this is then returned to the Registrar and a marriage certificate is issued. The same procedure applies to Civil Partnerships. So it appears that the Scots Law of marriage has been used to draw up many of the formalities of a Civil Partnership.

There is no reason to prevent the UK following France's example where the state only recognises marriages formed in France to exist from the moment of the civil ceremony. Religious ceremonies are purely of personal spiritual significance.

Opposition

Why not produce, as a counter-balance, evidence that other equally prominent persons approve of Civil Partnerships? --GuillaumeTell 00:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Law

The law does not specify that the registrants are in a relationship of any particular kind, least of all are a "same-sex couple", which implies a homosexual relationship. This is an NPOV statement.

A marriage is can be automatically annulled - considered invalid, on the grounds of non-consummation. Such marriages are considered "marriages of convenience". No such stipulation exists for CPs. This is an essential distinction from marriage.

The most articulate and comprenhensive opposition to CPs came from the RC church - it is ridiculous to exlude a summary of the opposition and the arguments from an NPOV article on CPs.

First off, please add new content to talk pages at the bottom of the page (where I've moved this discussion). Also, please finish your additions to the talk pages by signing them. You can do this by adding two dashes and then four tildes (~) at the end of your contribution. This indicates what user or IP address has made the addition and adds a time stamp, which makes the discussion easier to follow.

Second of all, the article says very explictly:

"...although both non-consummation and adultery can be grounds for dissolution of the partnership as they fall under the provision for unreasonable behavior."

In other words, a civil partnership that is not founded on an actual relationship can be dissolved on those grounds, just like a marrige is. You say a marraige can be "automatically" annulled on grounds of nonconsummation, but it isn't really "automatic" -- one of the spouses has to formally file a complaint in law, just as a civil partner would have to do in order to dissolve a partnership.

A civil partnership founded purely on pragmatic, financial grounds, for whatever the reasons the registrants chose, be they friends, strangers or whatever, could only be dissolved if a court decided that either partner had behaved "unreasonably". That may, or may not include the failure to perform homosexual acts, it certainly would not be grounds if the partnership was for purely financial purposes. The law does not recognise such a thing as homosexual "consummation", as clearly such a thing does not exist, furthermore it is improbable that any court in its right mind (certainly not one to date) would penalise someone for failing to commit a homosexual act.

It is simply factually incorrect and misleading to imply that "same sex couples" are the only people who may enter into CPs.

I didn't mean to revert the addition of the Catholic Church's statement ... will re-add that. --Jfruh 19:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

82.70.132.246: Seems you don't know there's a difference between 'the law' and the Act? Jfruh: The RC Church's statement has been removed: there's a link to it, quoting it at length is redundant. We need to be careful here: we could just end up with a load of POV statements from both sides, which isn't really useful. Csm1701 11:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction until 1971 non-consumation of a marriage made it void and thus a non-consummated marriage could be annulled by anyone who saw fit to do so - a meddling neighbour. Since 1971 non-consummation has rendered a marriage voidable which means that it can only be annulled by the parties to it. It is in no way an automatic event, it requires one of the parties to the marriage to commence proceedings for an annullment. In any event it has to be shown that there is 'wilful refusal' to consummate the marriage. Case law has upheld marriages where it has been shown that the parties agreed to have a non-sexual marriage. In addition the notion that a wife gives implied consent to sexual intercourse with her husband was overturned in Scotland 18 years ago and in England and Wales three or four years later. It is now possible for a man to rape his wife. So this particular distinction between marriage is very specific. It is arguable that if there was to be a proper re-consideration of the law of marriage that 'non-consummation' would disappear altogether from the law of marriage as this particular aspect has been limited. The Law Commission has suggested that the law of nullity should possibly be abolished or substantially curtailed as very few cases on this ground come up for consideration.

Gender Recognition Act

Anyone agree that Section 2 re Gender Recognition Act should be moved from Sec 2 into to something like Section 1.4? It's a well-written and informative paragraph (I've read the Act several times, but hadn't noticed this info before) but seems a but stuck out on it's own at the moment. Csm1701 11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

To whom it may concern, the first sentence of this article was under discussion at the meduiation cabal by 2 users. Unfortunately one user pulled out and the talks ended. As a result i felt that the first sentence should be reverted to it's original form. If you wish to query or argue against that please do so here - please do not RV again so as to stop another edit war. Thank you -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 11:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't pulled out -it's simply that I have to work for a living and cannot attend WikiPedia 24/7 Ros Power 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No sorry I was reffering to Chris, please refer to the mediation discussion for reasons. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Elegibility=

Sorry for reiterating this point, but lest it gets lost in the labyrinth of edits and mediations.

From the Daily Telegraph ()["http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/06/nlaw06.xml" article]

"As the distinguished family lawyer Stephen Cretney explains in his Clarendon Lectures, to be delivered in Oxford later this month and published by Oxford University Press, the new legislation does not require civil partners to be homosexual or indeed to have a sexual relationship of any kind. They do not even need to live together.

The benefits on offer under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 are available to pretty well any unrelated couple of the same sex aged 16 or over, provided neither of them is already married. All they need to do is to sign a document before a registrar in the presence of each other and of two witnesses." Ros Power 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sign your contributions. Do not rv this article again, as per Mediator's instruction. Your blatant bigotry is available for all to read at the mediation page, here Csm 1701 18:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? The Act and senior lawyers writing in national broadsheets simply do not concur with what you want the law to be. You want the law to be about "same sex couples". You want the law to give credibility, validity and recognition to homosexuality and homosexual relationships. You know that the term "same sex couple" implies a homosexual relationship, as anyone will tell you it does. You have tried to contort the word couple to mean "any two people", and you want WikiPedia to reflect your world view, in contradiction of the facts. The facts are the facts. The facts are not what you would like. What you would like is of secondary importance to the facts. Ros Power 19:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you need to read the many pages of discussion on such topics and our guidelines for sexuality-related topics. Exploding Boy 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you are the pride of East Lothian, but why oh why can you not just sign your contributions? Shame? Csm 1701 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[4]

"A same-sex couple is a pair of people of the same sex, who pursue a relationship similar to that of a heterosexual married couple. See also: civil union, same-sex marriage, registered partnership, domestic partnership." Ros Power 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"

Ah I see. The website is nothing to do with me I'm afraid. I'll try to remember the sig thing. Ros Power 19:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys I think this discussion has gone far enough. I am referring it too the arbitration commitee. What the decide will be final so it seems the best option. I am sorry this did not end in a satisfactory manner for all parties. Please try to be civil in your comments and do not level personla accusations. Ros, please please remember to sign your comments, it helps the rest of us see that it is you that is commenting and stops talk pages getting confusing. Cheers -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The residence qualification does not apply to Scotland. There are no residence qualifications in Scotland for marriage. Another point is that there is no requirement for the use of set words to create a marriage in Scotland. In many respects the Civil Partnership legislation seems to have based itself on the legislation for marriage in Scotland. The parties to a marriage will sign a Marriage Schedule and return this to the Register Office and will then be issued with a marriage certificate.

Merge with Civil Partnerships Act?

There seems to be a massive overlap between these two articles. Surely they could be merged? Thoughts? 83.217.190.69 16:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the two is that the other article concentrates on the Act of Parliament - it's part of a comprehensive List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 2000-Present, which is part of a listing going back to the year dot. There are a lot of red links there, but it would be a pity not to have a pointer to this Act, as people might think that the subject wasn't covered in Wikipedia. I don't think that a direct pointer from the List of Acts page to here would be appropriate, as there is a lot more here than basic info about the Act, not to mention the (?continuing) edit war.

Might I suggest reducing the other article considerably, concentrating on the Parliamentary side, and, of the links at the bottom, retaining only the Drafts of the Act section and the link to this article, and moving here any other links not here already. I could have a go at this if there's a consensus. --GuillaumeTell 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that reducing the scope of the other article would seem to make sense, as does the rest of your suggestion.

The 'edit war' is being handled by admin and we can be reasonably confident that the original first line will be reinstated: can't say more at this stage. 83.217.190.69 18:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem to need merging as this article is quite long enough, though the article on the Act probably needs combing through to remove duplication. Kurando | ^_^ 09:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging would probably result in an article of pretty much the same length as it is now. 83.217.190.69 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The more I read the two articles, the less I think they should be merged. Although they cover similar ground, the style is different; and the CP Act page allows greater scope for giving the history of the Bill/Act's progess from concept to law. Deep 13 10:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the duplication in Civil Partnership Act 2004 so that it now only describes the Act and its passage and makes it clear that the detail and the discussion is over here. I've also removed the Merger tag. Hope that's acceptable. --GuillaumeTell 10:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Transsexuals

This can have serious consequences for a married couple who wish to stay together after one or the other has changed gender. However under special provisions of the Civil Partnership Act they will be able from December to dissolve their marriage, and enter a civil partnership the next day

Am I right that this means there is a time period between the disolution and the new civil partnership? So for example, if a transexual person changes their legal gender and dissolved an existing marriage and then one of the partners is killed or whatever they won't be be in a partnership?

When I added the above (pretty sure it was me, forgot to sign), I thought it was more of a theoretical question since it would be unlikely to arise. However since I assume the dissolution will happen around the time of the operation, it may in fact be not such a theoretical question. So does anyone know the answer? Nil Einne 18:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Other countries

I have taken this from the civil unions main article concerning UK

Both same-sex marriages and civil unions of other nations will be automatically considered civil partnerships under UK law. This means that, in some cases, non-Britons from nations with civil unions will have more rights in the UK than in their native countries. For example, a Vermont civil union would have legal standing in the UK, however in cases where one partner was American and the other British, the Vermont civil union would not provide the Briton with right of abode in Vermont (or any other US state or territory), whereas it would provide the American with right of abode in the UK.

I assume this means same-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions? Since opposite sex civil parnerships don't exist presemuably an opposite sex civil union won't be recognised as a civil partnership. Will an opposite sex civil union automatically be considered a marriage?

Also as I said this was taken from the civil union article under UK. This does not seem to be mentioned here in this article but it should be... Nil Einne 20:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 certain "overseas relationships" between same sex couples are considered to be Civil Partnerships under UK law [5]. Relationships between opposite sex couples are specifically excluded from the definition of "Civil Partnership" whether they are from the UK or elsewhere. I am unsure whether there is another UK law that would recognise "Civil" opposite sex relationships that have been legalised in other countries. As a slightly separate point, I suspect that some marriages that can be carried out in foreign countries are not legally recognised in the UK (especially if the participants were under age by UK law at the time of the ceremony) - I still need to verify that suspicion though. Road Wizard 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Couples

As far as I can see, the phrase 'same-sex couples' was deleted to appease one unhappy yet vocal editor. I have reinstated it. The phrase is used elsewhere in Wikipedia when discussing this subject and its use here therefore makes sense. ReformedCharacter 15:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We went to mediation with this and it was decided that, given the facts, the words "same sex couple" were POV. That may not suit the majority of people with a personal or ideological interest in the CP legislation and this article, but there you go. Ros Power 10:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claim above is a blatant lie, Ros. No decision was made and you are, again, distorting the truth. Shameful but typical behaviour. 83.217.190.69 07:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Doh! I restored the phrase to the article before I spotted this comment. In your summary you said there is 'No reference in Law to "same sex couples"', however, the very first line of the CP Act 2004 says "A civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex". To remove the reference to the same sex requirement is misleading. If it is the word "couple" you are objecting to, then we can perhaps find an alternative wording. Road Wizard 11:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ros: The mediation page [6] indicates that mediation ended when one party withdrew. Please direct us to the page where the decision you claim was made can be read. Lost Garden 15:28, 6 August 2006.

Unfortuately the Mediation case fell apart and I decided to close it as insults were starting ot appear - which didn't help the situation. However I can say that we never really reached agreement.

Now that I am not mediating this case I think I can actually have an opinion. We did not agree that same sex was POV, rather we agreed that it could be construed as not being NPOV. A subtle but important difference. Actually, in truth we never properly agreed on that either. Towards the end of the case I think the other party agreed that in light of the dispute the words could be changed - however we did not reach an agreement over what the new words should be before the case descended into insults and i felt I had to close it (hence the big notice on the medcab page).

My opinion however is that as it is included in the act it is appropriate in this article. This was the major evidence presented to oppose Ros Power's argumant and, to be honest, I think it has alot of weight. I will look through the case again however (as requested by Lost Garden or my talk page) and post a formal conclusion to the process and let you take it from there (I will be assuming the role of no opinion again for it so don't worry about bias etc.) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Lost Garden 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

TMorton166, you suggested in the mediation this wording, with which I am happy.

"In December 2005 Civil Partnerships were introduced in the UK. The act allows two people of the same sex to enter into a formal partnership that grants similar rights and responsibilties to that of marriages. Although the act does not stipulate that the 2 people must be in a relationship many of the current people entering into a CP were previously in a relationship."

I maintain that the term "same-sex couple" is not NPOV. Two widows or widowers entering into a CP are not a "same-sex couple". This is a term that implies two people who perform homosexual acts upon one another, or are in a relationship that imitates marriage. The law simply does not specify that. I have gone over this in huge detail on the mediation page [7]. Ros Power 09:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have said above, there is some leeway in discussing an alternative for the word "couple". However, the term "same-sex" is clearly specified in the law. Your continued removal of "same-sex" against the consensus of the other editors is not acceptable as it is also not NPOV. Road Wizard 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ros Power's recent amendment makes no sense - the partnership can only be between people of the same sex. I've put in some words to make that clear. I'd be prepared to accept the TMorton66 sentences which she quotes above, provided that "many" in the second sentence is changed to "all or nearly all". --GuillaumeTell 14:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now altered the opening para along the above lines. --GuillaumeTell 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article being damaged once again to appease Ros Power? Ros Power has only one purpose here (see her user page), she is simply trying to restart an old edit war that she lost months ago. She is taking the Mediator's quotes out of context, ignores any part of his decision that doesn't support her conservative agenda, and is not beyond using falsehoods (see above). I have reverted the article so that it now makes sense, so that it accurately reflects what the CP Act is about. I am astonished that Ros Power's vandalism of the good work of so many is still permitted - perhaps it is time to find out how to rid ourselves of this pest? 83.217.190.69 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That the majority of editors of an article don't like the facts doesn't mean the facts aren't the facts. The facts are that "same-sex couple" means a homosexual relationship, and civil partnerships are not limited to people in homosexual relationships. And that's a fact. The fact that only one person wants this fact elucidated and the article to be factually correct, and that most editors don't like the facts, doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be factually correct. When somebody can demonstrate that civil partnerships are only open to "same sex couples", I'll rescind, until that point, I'll keep making this article factually correct.

82.70.132.246 04:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A disgraceful outburst wholly contrary to WP's regs on consensus. Your dictatorial manner is wholly inappropriate here and you are respectfully asked to desist. If you cannot work in a collegiate manner, I will ask admin to review you ability to edit here at all. As you have a user id, Ros Power, please use it. 83.217.190.69 07:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ros Power. You've been warned repeatedly on your Talk page about the manner in which you interact with fellow editors. You have also been advised that you must follow the disputes resolution process. This article is the result of hard work by a large number of editors who will not permit you to ruin it. Yes, straight people could form a CP: gay people could also marry - however I do not see you altering, repeatedly, the various marriage-related articles to reflect that. Worse, your edit is factually incorrect as CPs are not open to any two people. Sloppy, politically motivated, bad-mannered editing has has no place here, or anywhere else on WP, either. A little self control on your part would be appreciated. Trance or Daze? 07:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's a bit much to accuse me of being politically motivated when people keep reverting the article to a FACTUALLY INCORRECT statement to fit what they want the act to say, when it doesn't say that. Homosexuals can certainly marry, and always have been able to, but for the marriage to be valid it would have to be consummated and it would furthermore have to demonstrate a bona fide relationship. So whereas two complete strangers can enter into a CP (and I have provided copious evidence to demonstrate that), only a COUPLE can enter into a marriage. Which is why it is incorrect to say or imply that only "same-sex couples" can enter into CPs, whereas it would not be untrue to say that only opposite sex couples can marry. Ros Power 12:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you learn this nonsense? I could marry a total stranger (or indeed opt for a CP, though that's not really my cup of tea) with with equal ease. You could also, assuming you are free to do so. There is no requirement in either case for a bone-fide relationship to be proved. You have zero proof of heterosexuals taking advantage of the CP Act, otherwise you would have presented it to us. Lastly, Medcab's decision on this matter has already been made clear (see below) and yet you continue to pervert this article to fit in with your religious and political views. 83.217.190.69 13:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. You couldn't marry a total stranger, whereas you could enter into a CP with one. Yes, you have to be in a bona-fide relationship for a marriage to be valid, no you don't have to be in a bona-fide relationship for a CP to be valid. My political or religious views are irrelevant. What is relevant is the facts. Check your facts. Ros Power 14:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeating yourself changes nothing. I challenge you to prove your claims re the 'strangers marrying/forming a CP' claims and you will have made your point. You operate double-standards, mentioning other people's lifestyles and view ("you're so inured in the homosexual lifestyle" was one charmless comment made to some perfectly decent editor, I recall) but a panic when your own views are mentioned. You are merely being done to as you do unto others. Again, you are openly challenged to prove beyond all doubt and with reference to official and verifiable sources the 'bone-fide' requirement for marriage, using the same quality sources show how this does not apply to CPs.

In addition, you have also been challenged to show your claimed 'proof' of heterosexuals entering into CPs. Everyone will note that you have failed to provide this proof and will judge your claims accordingly.

Er, I actually have done all those things at length, both here and on the mediation page.Ros Power 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not done so here. A read though of the Mediation page reveals no such proof either. You are challenged again to present your proof for the consideration of everyone editing this article. Should be very easy if you know where to go to cut 'n' paste! If not, we are at liberty to assume that you have no such proof to offer. 83.217.190.69 16:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your recent edits have just been rv'd by an Admin. Good for them! 83.217.190.69 15:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That editor seems to think, then, that "same sex couple" means "any two people of the same sex linked in some way". That editor is wrong. Ros Power 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And you are always right? You know better that all the editors here, the Mediator, the Medcab, the Admins staff? Pure arrogance. 83.217.190.69 16:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ros Power. I am asking you to leave the article as is until such time as a consensus is reached here. You may prove to be correct (though so far you have provided not a scintilla of proof for your claims) however you cannot simply override everyone else on an hourly basis. If you continue in this manner, I will have no alternative but to set aside WP's Assume Good Faith requirement and view your actions as deliberately designed to skew an article in favour of a single editor's viewpoint. I am certain we agree that claims made here need to be verifiable using reputable sources: point us to those sources and if they support your contention then you will have my support. Anything else is just unsubstantiated claim-making and buggering about with semantics, something of which I am sure you disappove as heartily as I do. Tod. Trance or Daze? 16:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done it. I've done it throughout this discussion page, and also here [8].

There is nothing semantic about distinguishing between "same-sex couple", with its indisputable connotations and implications of a homosexual relationship, and "two people of the same sex". I could enter into a CP tomorrow with my next door neighbour, it would not mean we were a "same sex couple". In fact, as a senior BBC journalist conceded to me in a discussion with him, it may transpire that given an ageing population and the pensions crisis, in the long run, heterosexual, non "couple" CPs may outnumber homosexual "couple" CPs. Given that fewer than 0.1% of practising homosexuals have entered into CPs, that may happen PDQ.

The "couple" criteria is EXACTLY the substantial difference between marriages and CPs. A CP IS for convenience. A marriage CANNOT LEGALLY be for convenience. How many times do I have to repeat this? Ros Power 18:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, point us to a specific online source that backs up your claim. Directing us to WP pages where you claim to have given objective third-party proof of your assertions doesn't cut it. You do not strike me as a lazy person, so you should be more than willing to quote your sources again, in brief, for our benefit. If not, at the third time of asking, I believe we at liberty to assume you cannot back up your claims.

OK: [9] Ros Power 18:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And... http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004/40033--c.htm#3 Ros Power 18:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claimed conversation with a BBC journalist does not consititute evidence of anything. You claimed to have substantial evidence. Produce it or stop making the claim. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof: hearsay, as I am sure you agree, is worthless.

Done. Ball in your court. Ros Power 18:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The implications of 'same-sex couple' are disputable - that is what you, I and several others are doing here.

You could dispute the meaning of the word "horse", but a horse would still be a horse. I challenge anyone to dispute the dictionary definition of "same-sex couple" meaning "homosexual". Ros Power 18:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of etiquette - I must ask you to stop using captitals for emphasis: it is considered very rude, equivalent to shouting. I repeat my request that you adhere to WP's guidelines on consensus. Trance or Daze? 18:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ros. An opinion from a newspaper cannot be considered compelling! I can direct you to the Daily Star's web site, if you like! :-) You have provided us with a link to the Act with which we are all familiar as it's already incorporated into the article. In addition, you have not, in anyway, provided the claimed evidence to support your assertion that there are significant numbers of heterosexual people forming CPs.

In summary: your proof is

a) opinion (either yours, those of a reported in an alleged conversation or those of the newspaper editor of your choice) and not acceptable under the NPOV requirements

False. It was a report of the facts of the CP legislation as stated by a senior Family Lawyer in one of the Clarendon Lectures at Oxford University. Not the opinion of a newspaper. Next. Ros Power 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

b) something you have already stated in the past. If your fellow editors have not found it to be convincing evidence before, they're not going to do so now.

it is convincing evidence. I've even provided the text of the Act which this article concerns, from which it is very, very, very obvious that CPs are not in any sense limited to practising homosexuals. Ros Power 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

c) somethiing of which anyone who's read the article and/or Act is already well aware

Obviously not. Because the text of the WP article uses the term "same sex couple", which implies, incorrectly, that CPs are only open to practising homosexuals. Next Ros Power 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

d) in places, the proof is simply not forthcoming despite repeated requests.

The obduracy of certain editors is not evidence of my failure to provide evidence. Next. Ros Power 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the majority is not always right. However, WP thrives on consensus. When we sign up to WP we implicitly agree to edit on that understanding.

So then, what happens when the majority of editors are calling black white, and one editor provides proofs from law and expert opinion that black is black, and, for whatever reasons, the majority of editors want to keep calling it white? Ros Power 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I admire your tenacity, I really do. But, despite your best efforts, you have been unable provide any compelling reason why the article should not be worded as it stands at present. As one reasonable person to another, I ask you to agree to leave the article in its present form. To do otherwise will achieve nothing, indeed would be entriely counter-productive.

If you still believe that we are all in error, then WP:DR must be your next port of call as continuing an edit war is unacceptable.

Why don't editors just change the text to reflect the Act? Ros Power 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tod Trance or Daze? 19:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ros.

You are making radical claims about the number of heterosexual people forming CPs, what does and does not consitute a same-sex couple, legal definitions of words you insist are of importance in this issue, etc, etc.

Nowhere have I claimed that any heterosexual people have entered into Civil Partnerships, although it is supposed to have happened between two batchelors who run a business in Scotland. What I have said is Civil Partnerships are open to people other than those in a "same-sex couple", which is a FACT, and therefore the statement "CPs became available to same-sex couples" is misleading and inaccurate. The law does NOT recognise homosexuality, homosexual acts as a duty or homosexual unions. 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You have provided either weak or no proof and no 'expert opinion' you just claim to have done so. Repeatedly. You have made these same claims for months, but they remain as utterly unconvincing as when they were first given. As should be obvious by now, nobody here is swayed by either the claims of proof, the paucity of the evidence provided or the unfortunate manner in which you debate these issues.

I have provided proof. What could be more proof than the Act itself and a transliteration of a statement by a leading family lawyer? Help me here. What more proof could you want? Right. Here is the Act.

Eligibility

(1) Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if-

(a) they are not of the same sex,

(b) either of them is already a civil partner or lawfully married,

(c) either of them is under 16, or

(d) they are within prohibited degrees of relationship.

(2) Part 1 of Schedule 1 contains provisions for determining when two people are within prohibited degrees of relationship.

That's it. Those are the elegibility requirements. Where does this mention "same-sex couples"? Where does it state you have to be in a relationship? Where does it state you have to practise homosexuality? Where?? And this is an article about the ACT! What more proof do you want?Ros Power 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In summary, and as demonstrated by the immediate reversion of all your edits, the consensus is that this article represents the Act in a reasonable, logical and easily digestible fashion. It may not be perfect (I've yet to see a perfect article on WP and I've been here pretty much since day one!) but it's certainly well-researched, well-written, informative and, most important of all, balanced. This is the view of the overwhelming majority of editors, of the Mediator (even though you claimed otherwise), the Medcab, and assorted Admins. You may not respect these views, but you may not override them repeatedly.

In summary, nobody has provided ANY evidence that CPs are limited to "same sex couples", and I have provided copious evidence that the leading statement is completely, factually wrong. I have absolutely no doubt at all that might it right and the mob will prevail on this one, but the mob is wrong, and this transcript will remain as evidence of how Wikipedia works, and how much Wikipedia needs reformed to stop this kind of demagoguery. I have provided the proof, the facts, and both have been overridden. That may give you satisfaction, but I can assure you that, insofar as it discredits Wikipedia, it is a Phyrric victory. Ros Power 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that you do not share this view, however you cannot demand that your interpretation is the one that stands. Further reverting of this article is unacceptable and I'm grateful that you seem to accept this point.

It is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of the Facts, the Proof, the Evidence, and, ultimately the Civil Partnership Act to which this article pertains. It is NOT an matter of interpretation. It simply isn't. It is a matter of FACT. And I make no apologies for the CAPS. You are wrong, I am right, because the indisputable, non-interpretable facts are on my side, and you cannot refute them.Ros Power 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no point replying to this saying that you don't agree - we all know that. You're an old hand on WP, you know the rules as well as the rest of us - your only appropriate response is to go down the WP:DR route. If your case really is that strong, if your proof really is that clear cut then you should be actively seeking to have it validated by the wider WP community, and WP:DR is the only method you have to do that. Why are you not grabbing the chance? In your position, I would.

I will, and in the meantime, this article will be factually WRONG.Ros Power 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't think that there's an awful lot more to be said, however if you wish to reply, please do under the message rather than intruding little snippets into the original message itself - doing so will make it less likely that your full range of comments will be overlooked.

Too late. Ros Power 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Regards Tod. Trance or Daze? 09:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Look forward to participating in the resolution process in due course. Please do keep us apprised.

It is exceedingly rude to imply that the editors here are a 'mob' and so forth. If you display just a modicum of politeness and good humour you'll find the whole process much more congenial. Regards, Tod. Trance or Daze? 12:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have requested mediation. I would be grateful if you could sign.[10] Ros Power 13:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ros. You have chosen the wrong resolution method.

1 - It is not a dispute limited to a couple or more people, but between yourself and the many other editors who have formed the consensus. The appropriate course of action must involve the larger WP community and you need to select from the other options.

2 - I see the other party you listed has already rejected the Mediation almost certainly on the same grounds (though comment is not permitted on the page.) As mediation cannot take place should any party disagree, I have not bothered registering my own disagreement.

3 - Even if this were a more limited dispute, I would have disagreed anyway on the grounds that the Mediation process was tried before and the Mediator already issued a statement on the subject. Further, this was then passed to the MedCab who backed the Mediatior's decision. (See below)

So,sorry, but mediation is a non-starter on several grounds. Tod Trance or Daze? 12:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. Well, not exactly a PS but a follow-on. A thought occurs to me. As a time-saver, and bearing in mind that thr process is already 3/4 of the way there, I will ask the Mediator if he is willing to take this to the MedCom for a binding decision. 83.217.190.69 16:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No idea what the difference is between MedCab and MedCom, but if it saves time and effort go right ahead. Tod Trance or Daze? 16:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Surname change

There is no requirement that either party must change their surname upon entering a civil partnership. Does this mean that British law does require one partner to change their surname in a marriage? Nik42 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No. That is merely a custom, and a diminishing one. To my knowledge, it was never a legal requirement in Britain or the Commonwealth countries. JackofOz 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

uh klate in the game I know but I believe legally a married women is known by both names. EG: Miss Fiona Potts marrying Mr Rummery would become Mrs Fiona Potts Rummery. :D Its archaic and dates back to the time when men were held in higher legal regard than women. In civil partnerships there is not such requirements. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement to adopt your husband's name in marriage. However in England and Wales if a woman decides to adopt her husband's surname she has to formally re-adopt her maiden name in writing (usually done by deed poll) in the event of a divorce. In Scotland legal documents are drafted to refer to married women as having alternative surnames.

Terminology

When people enter into a Civil Partnership, it is not a "marriage" in precisely the same legal sense as a traditional marriage between people of the opposite sex. Nevertheless, people commonly say, for example, that Elton John married David Furnish. I doubt this usage will change, since it's much more meaningful to say that than to say they "registered with each other", or whatever. Wikipedia is sticking to the facts and using the "registration" terminology. How do we ensure this is applied consistently? For example, Darren Hayes is said to have "married" his boyfriend by entering into a Civil Partnership with him. Should this be changed, or should it stay there, to reflect the way people in general talk and think about these arrangements? JackofOz 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I too have noticed this tendency, especially in the British press, with the American press apparently content to follow the lead. (I don't think you would ever see an American newspaper, no matter how liberal its reputation, referring to a couple entering into a domestic partnership or civil union as getting "married".) The difference may be related to a greater acceptance of same-sex relationships in the UK, though it also may just be a matter of ease of writing: there's no easy verb equivalent to "marrying" (a friend of mine who did it in Vermont said tongue-in-cheek that she "got unionized.") I think to keep things accurate we ought to use the "partnership" terminology. We definitely shouldn't use "marry" in scare quotes, as that has all sorts of implicit POV judgement calls that we should steer clear of. My two cents (er, sorry, UK article, I mean two pence), anyway. --Jfruh (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hayes himself uses the term married on his website, which sort of complicates matters. --GuillaumeTell 18:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation answers

I have been asked by a few people to pass by and give some sort of verdict on the medcab case. Sorry it has taken so long. Ill try and keep this short and sweet :D

The discussion threw up basically a single issue - that the words same-sex couples implied a consummated physical relationship was required to enter into a civil partnership. Ros Power says that this is not the case and that the Act only outlines what relationship is NOT allowed before entering into a partnership. Chris (CMS1701) argued that the words same-sex couples was used in literature published by the govt alongside the act.

I have to say Chris' argument was the most swaying. I see Ros Power's point and agree that it could be misconstrued if that was how it was presented in the article . However we need to consider the phrase in context. It is in the introduction to the article and as such can be seen in more general terms. The chances of misconstruing the definition / guideline is fairly low. Also Same-sex couples reads better than many other suggested alternatives.

Ultimately though Chris' point that official documentation used the phrase swayed my viewpoint (I did initially favour Ros power I have to admit). If the official papers can use the words same-sex couple then the lead to the Wiki article can as well - as far as I can see it is not misleading :D.

I know this is a highly sensitive subject for some people. I feel the big problem for Ros was the word couple so I proposed an alternative that might appease both parties: same-sex partners. I don't know what people opinion on that.

I also have noticed some attempts to make this article 'gender neutral'. Although WP has no policy on gender neutrality the major consensus is that we do not abide to it UNLESS there are extreme grounds. Gender neutrality has been a big problem on Wikipedia recently and has caused problems with articles being moved to versions that are grammatically incorrect (tradesman to tradesperson for example). We use correct English (or American English) spellings and grammar on WP, gender neutrality is not recognised by those languages (it is in fact a colloquialism). In the case of the OED it is explicitly noted as not being used in the language :D

I hope these points help make my position and the position of the medcab clear in this. Any queries ask at my talk page as I have 1000+ pages on my watchlist and sometimes miss article talk page posts... thanks --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The term "same sex couple" is indeed used by some government departments. But in fact the only truly official document WRT to the CP Act is, in fact the CP Act itself. And it is clear from the CP act that CPs are not limited to "same sex couples". I have asked the DTI why they use this term, and they tell me (and I quote) "that civil partnership is primarily of interest to gay(sic) couples". That does not mean that they are limited, legally or otherwise, to pairs of practising homosexuals. Ros Power 14:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sure I speak for the majority of editors when I thank you for clarifying your position, and that of the Medcab. Your suggestion re the ude of the word 'partners' is interesting, but perhaps less than ideal as the term could easily be confused with Civil Partners once they have formed their Civil Partnership. But, as you say, if the official blurb uses 'couples' then it's acceptable here. Again, thank you for your time and effort. 83.217.190.69 09:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Adultery and Consummation

I corrected the statement about the similarities and differences between marriage and CPs. Strangely, I was accused of vandalism. My accuser could have consulted a dictionary, but for his or her benefit, I present the definitions of both adultery and consummation.

Consummation:

"The actualization of a marriage. Sexual intercourse is required to "consummate" a marriage. Failure to do so is grounds for divorce or annulment. "

Clearly this does not apply to CPs, firstly because homosexuals cannot have sexual intercourse, secondly because Civil Partnerships are not marriage and thirdly because legally people in a CP cannot be married.

Adultery:

a·dul·ter·y (ə-dŭl'tə-rē, -trē) pronunciation n., pl. -ies.

Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

People in a CP cannot legally be married. Ergo they cannot commit adultery.

Unless people can find alternative definitions, please do not revert. Thanks.Ros Power 12:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ros I saw your edits and Im not sure that what you have replaced it with is appropriate. lack of homosexual behaviour is both wrong and mildly rude :D Besides consumation is not specifcally applied to marriage. In fact the definition is to bring to a state of perfection; fulfill, the definition you mention is an adjectiveso technically a collequial of the word. I think in this context it makes sense. I see you also edited the lead again - maybe it would be best not to keep[ changing it for now unntil it gets discussed some more --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for your post. You are right that in a broad sense consummation can mean the fulfilment of anything, but here we are specifically talking about comparing marriage and Civil Partnership, and furthermore in terms of things of a sexual nature and furthermore something of a legal status. With regard to either of those things individually, and certainly all three combined, consummation only has one meaning, one meaning that simply cannot factually be applied to anything that might occur sexually between two people of the same sex.

WRT to the term "homosexual behaviour", what is rude about it!?

WRT to the term Adultery, I assume that you agree that it is impossible for anybody in a CP to commit adultery.

WRT to the term "couple", what do you suggest we can do to have a factually correct term replace it?

Regards. Ros Power 13:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas - you are wasting your breath, mate. She will continue to revert until she gets blocked. Just leave her to it. 83.217.190.69 12:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really a valid point. And if people are blocked by the mob for correcting factual inaccuracies, then WikiPedia has no future.

How many times must you be asked to sign your comments? 83.217.190.69 13:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm everyone :D Agreed adultery is impossible - infidelity as you have used is a better word. As to couple I really am not sure what else can be used. I dont like the phrase any two people of the same sex because that implies no limitation - which there is! What we need is something in between. I couldnt specifically tell you what is rude about homosexual behaviour just when I read it it didnt feel right. the behaviour bit could mean anything - like kissing or holding hands. Would intercourse work in there - that is not tied specifically to Sex or hetrosexuality.

The problem here is, once again talking factually, two people of the same sex cannot have sexual intercourse! Unless one had a fake vagina or penis, but now we are entering into the realms of absurdity. How about "sexual activity"? I agree that not any two people of the same sex can enter into a CP, but it needs to be emphasised, somehow, that CPs are completely unlike pseudo-marriage in this very important legal and factual regard. Ros Power 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"...are unlike pseudo-marriage"? As pseudo-marriage doesn't exist in the UK (or anywhere else, come to think of it) how can a CP be unlike it. You're babbling. 83.217.190.69 15:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

@ chris, sorry you feel this way (replying to your commenty on my talk page too) I am going to try and resolve this but i am truly sorry you feel that you wish to leave WP. I hope in the future you will be able to come back... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A catch-all sentence along the lines of 'this happens in marriage but doesn't apply to CPs' is all that's required. Simple. No need to flog definitions to death. Trance or Daze? 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Roz, I do not understand why, if you believe homosexuals cannot have sex, you continually refer to "practising homosexuals". What are they practising in your view? Needlepoint? Dev920 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In divorce law it has been decided in legal case law that adultery constitutes a hetrosexual penetrative sexual act. Homosexual acts of all descriptions and non-penetrative hetrosexual acts are classed as Unreasonable Behaviour. In addition the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states that it also has to be shown that the petitioner finds it "intolerable" to continue living with the respondent to proceedings. Therefore you cannot obtain a divorce by purely pleading adultery you must also recite something that makes it intolerable to continue the marriage. Therefore in the contect of Civil Partnerships it is not sensible to include adultery as a fact supporting the dissolution of the arrangement. The vast majority of infidelity that might occur in Civil Partnerships will involve some form of relationship with someone of the same gender. To have included adultery as a fact would have opened up a bizarre set up - Civil Partners could dissolve their relationships for same sex infedility, whilst married spouses could not for same sex fidelity.

I reworded the section in dispute; hopefully it is now acceptable to everyone. --Atemperman 00:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I know very little about UK marriage law, but I'm somewhat doubtful a (heterosexual) couple who regularly engage in anal sex but never in vaginal sex could get a annulment because they haven't consumated their marriage Nil Einne 10:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable Partnerships

I hope this isn't too controversial: I have removed the Notable Partnerships section. IMHO it's not encyclopaedic, more like something culled from Hello! magazine. Also, the list is likely to get ludicrously long as time passes. Trance or Daze? 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposition - why is this included?

I am a little puzzled by the inclusion of the Opposition subsection.

It quotes three examples of opposition, and I list my response.

• 1 - a few protests by a Northern Ireland Church. These were very minor, localised and stopped almost as soon as they began.

• 2 - The Scottish council that declared that no officer would be forced into conducting a ceremony. Again, very local, in the real world nobody declined to form a partneship and the 'ban' was lifted months ago.

• 3 - The RC Church's condemnation. This is related to the Act itself and should be linked to there, if at all. (The RC Church objects to much, but not all their declarations appear on related articles.)

I have no doubt that there was some objection (somebody somewhere is always objecting to something) but this section seems to give undue weight to objections that are/were a) not relevant to the CP process itself, b) were so minor and short-lived as to have barely registered, c) relate to the decision of one council that had no real-world effect and which was dropped shortly thereafter.

It also occurs to me that the 'opposition' was absolutely dwarfed by the positive comments made by so many and yet this section doesn't cover this at all. Very unbalanced.

Thoughts? It strikes me as a pointless use of server space and unless anyone can give decent reasons for keeping it, I suggest it goes in the bin. Trance or Daze? 17:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Differences.

The Difference Between Marriage and CP section claimed that marriages are legally formed at the point where whoever is conducting the marriage speaks the words "I now pronounce you man and wife." Totally untrue!

As per the Wedding Guide UK web site (a very useful reference for all things marriage related, consulted it often myself) "The bride and groom are required to sign the register to make the marriage legal."

The differences between marriage and a CP seem so slight as to hardly warrant the section, however I suppose it actually serves to highlight the similarities rather than the differences.

Joel

Indeed. Related is the word 'virtually' in the article's opening sentence when discussing legal rights are responsibilities and comparing these to marriage. There are not LEGAL differences, as evidenced by the main body of the article and, indeed, the link contained within the sentence itself. This is sloppy writing and misleading. Any differences between Civil Partnerships and civil marriage are trivila to the point of being barely worthy of comment, however they may as well get a mention. The LEGAL differences in terms of rights and responsibilities are nil (the Act was written exactly so that shuld be the case) and this first sentence needs a rewrite. 81.159.16.124 09:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)