(1) I’m not sure that the government wants to get rid of the adultery as a grounds for divorce. The reason adultery is defined in law as heterosexual intercourse is because of the relationship between marriage and children. The logic is that it your wife has sex with a women, that’s a betrayal (”unreasonable behavior”). If your wife has sex with a man that’s also betrayal, but it can also lead to a child - presumption of paternity is relevant here. So sex with a woman has different legal significance than sex with a man. The situation is similar for a man who has sex outside the marriage. I think the reason that adultery isn’t grounds for dissolution of a CP is that this logic doesn’t extend perfectly to same-sex CPs - the same reason consumation was left out of CPs.

(2) I’m aware same sex couples can adopt. But it isn’t a step parent adoption unless the adopting couple are married or in a CP. Before CPs same-sex couples couldn’t enter a CP, so couldn’t get a step-parent adoption.

A civil partnership, like a marriage, can be dissolved for “unreasonable behavior”, and a partner’s unfaithfulness can be unreasonable behavior. Adultery isn’t available as a separate reason for dissolving a civil partnership, as it is in marriage, partly because the government want to get rid of the adultery reason for marriage too (it’s still there as a sop to the Church, but everyone knows most people use it as a means of getting a fast divorce without having to accuse your spouse of unreasonable behavior), and partly because adultery is defined in law as an act of heterosexual sexual intercourse. (A woman whose husband gets blowjobs from other men but never has intercourse with a woman cannot divorce him for adultery, though she can for unreasonable behavior.)

A marriage can be annulled if it is not consumated. This isn’t grounds for annulling a CPs. Consumation is legally defined as hetrosexual sex, so same sex couples can’t by definition consumate their relationship.

I think you’ll find that consumnation, like adultery, is legally defined as heterosexual sexual intercourse, not as “heterosexual sex”.

Marriage grants presumption of paternity and automatic parental rights to a man whose wife has his child. There’s no parallel with CPs.

It seems likely that there will be, though, once the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act is amended: the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has recommended that when a same-sex couple apply for fertility treatment, they should be treated legally the same as a mixed-sex couple: if a cohabiting couple, the woman’s partner should have the option of being the child’s other legal parent, and if a civil=partnered couple, the woman’s partner should be assumed to be the child’s other legal parent unless she takes steps to opt out before the child is born.

(though they do have rights to step-parent adoption and “child of the family” provisions).

In Scotland only a mixed-sex married couple can adopt, though this may change in 2006: in England/Wales for some time now, any couple in a stable long term relationship have been able to adopt, and same-sex couples have been able to apply for step-parent adoption.

“Child of the family” provisions are in the process of being amended to be the same for civil partners as for married couples.

(1) Adultery is grounds for divorce in a marriage, but not for dissolution of a civil partnership.
(2) A marriage can be annulled if it is not consumated. This isn’t grounds for annulling a CPs. Consumation is legally defined as hetrosexual sex, so same sex couples can’t by definition consumate their relationship.
(3) Marriage grants presumption of paternity and automatic parental rights to a man whose wife has his child. There’s no parallel with CPs (though they do have rights to step-parent adoption and “child of the family” provisions).
(4) Marriage is a religious or a civil ceremony. CP is a civil ceremony. This is an important distinction because the Church of England is established and so people have a legal right to be married in church. There isn’t a legal right to have a CP in church.

I hesitate to use the word “benefits” like Nick did. Some of the above could be benefits to some people but disadvantages to others. Religious gay people may want right (4) which is a benefit. Impotent straight people may see (2) as a disadvantage. (3) and (1) could be seen as benefits or disadvantages, depending on your personal desires.

So why aren’t these “Civil Partnerships” called “marriages”?

They’re not legally identical to marriages, so calling them marriages would be misleading. It’d also have been politically more difficult to get the law though if they were called marriages.

It’s interesting that there are opposite sex couples who don’t want to get married because of their views on the instiution but would want a CP. It’s also interesting that there are gay people who don’t support the use of the word marriage for a gay partnership. I suspect the roots of their position is a disagreement with marriage as an cultural institution. I’d be interested in knowing more about their views.

I’m not sure what the connection with “dwindling resources” may be

I should have been clearer there. I meant that in general, consolidated households have the potential to save on/reduce consumption of electricity, food, fuel, housing space, water etc. in a way that the single person alone in a single dwelling does not.

Sorry.

I doubt that it would end the confusion and rancor that’s often inevitable when marriages break up.

Sad but true, alsis39. No one has much hope of that. But if we know at least, at a minimum, what the law is which applies to the situation, we have a leg up in dealing with the inevitable chaos. If we first have to figure out just what the law is even, we’re prolonging the agony.

I work in this area, and believe me, I know what I’m talking about.

In an era where we’re supposedly concerned with saving dwindling resources, cohabitation of all kinds should be rewarded and encouraged where possible;Not just cohabitation based on romantic love.

This is a very interesting suggestion, and one which deserves a great deal more exploration than it has hitherto received.

Like many good suggestions, it harks back to a situation which at one time worked very well in this culture, the “clan” or “extended family.” It was taken for granted in such situations that a group of people, not just the “romantic” couple (and of course in most cases romance had little to do with it anyway), would co-habit, and in addition protect and take care of one another. I am personally acquainted with several old-style families in this model, typically way out in the country.

I’m not sure what the connection with “dwindling resources” may be, but in my opinion this kind of thing was and is a very good idea, one which society should certainly consider fostering and supporting. As hippies we did a good deal of experimenting with this concept, and some - not many - of our “experiments” are still alive and well and together. However, they are so in the teeth of a marriage legal system which does not recognize them, and which in fact seeks to destroy them if it can.

As in, if you are married, the property laws of marriage (which we’ve had for a long long time and worked most of the kinks out of) apply to you. Likewise the laws about spousal support…

Errr… considering how many lawyers work on divorces, pre-nup agreements, and the like– not to mention how laws can vary from state to state, I don’t agree that we’ve exactly “worked out all the kinks.”

I think that allowing legal SSM would help somewhat, but I doubt that it would end the confusion and rancor that’s often inevitable when marriages break up. I also don’t think that we should stop with couples in romantic partnerships when it comes to expansions of rights. I’d always hoped that legal SSM would be a start in that regard, not a finish. In an era where we’re supposedly concerned with saving dwindling resources, cohabitation of all kinds should be rewarded and encouraged where possible;Not just cohabitation based on romantic love.

I don’t know too much about practicing law in the UK (!!!) but I do have some opinions about living here. While we’re trying to keep order here (are we trying to keep order?) we could make everyone’s life a lot easier and more predictable by allowing gays and lesbians to marry, and then drawing a bright line between married people and not-married people as to things like property rights and support obligations.

As in, if you are married, the property laws of marriage (which we’ve had for a long long time and worked most of the kinks out of) apply to you. Likewise the laws about spousal support. If for whatever reason you’re not married, they don’t.

As it is, because gays are not allowed to marry, but in many places in the United States, including California, can form unions which are Sort Of Like Marriage But Not Quite, there is the potential for a very substantial amount of confusion. And a substantial amount of litigation.

While this confusion keeps lawyers busy (and lawyers’ children safely housed in expensive private colleges), it isn’t exactly a social good. And as for why the religious feelings of some of the population about all this should be enshrined in law, this has yet to be explained to me in terms I can understand.

I wonder what his reasoning is behind taking that position?

While I can’t speak for Mr Barrowman, I’ve had that conversation with a good friend of mine, and he and his partner were ambivalent about the entire issue. On one hand, there’s the issue of public recognition for their relationship, and the legal rights it entails.
On the other hand, he felt that to some degree getting “married” meant adapting themselves to a heterosexual paradigm, rather than continuing to explore a genuine alternative. And when the heterosexual mainstream has rejected you for, well, forever, is it progress to turn around and embrace it?
I’m not expressing myself well - it was a quick conversation two years ago…

Well, in common parlance, they are called marriages. As far as I can see from news reports, no one bothers to say “getting a civil partnership” when they can say “getting married”, or “registering a civil partnership” when they can say “wedding”.

No doubt you’re right as a general thing - but to every rule, there is an exception.

Doctor Who star John Barrowman is to marry his boyfriend in a civil ceremony in the New Year.

Mr Barrowman who plays bisexual character Captain Jack is to take part in a Civil Partnership ceremony with his boyfriend of ten years, the architect Scott Gill.

Mr Barrowman told the Sun that he and his partner are aiming for a low-key affair: “We’re just going to sign the civil register. We’re not going to have any ceremony because I’m not a supporter of the word marriage for a gay partnership.”

I wonder what his reasoning is behind taking that position? Unfortunately, the article does not say. It does mention that he’s going to star in a Doctor Who spin-off, though.

Then they’ve got it wrong. That’s the mass media for you. :-)

There are points of difference between marriage and civil partnership (private sector pension companies don’t have to treat civil partners the same as spouses, plus a rack of differences to do with children), and there are points of difference between Scottish law and English law with regard to marriage, but those differences are not congruent: in the UK, civil partnership was meant to mirror marriage, wherever you happen to get married or get a civil partnership.

Sorry, I thought you were responding to comments upthread.

Well, in common parlance, they are called marriages. As far as I can see from news reports, no one bothers to say “getting a civil partnership” when they can say “getting married”, or “registering a civil partnership” when they can say “wedding”.

Actually, no, you’re missing the point.

There are differences between marital law in England and Wales, and in Scotland - Daran was quite right.

But, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was intended to mirror marriage - to provide the same rights and benefits of marriage. There are some small differences between civil partnership and marriage: in England and Wales, or in Scotland. But, civil partnership in Scotland is virtually the same as marriage in Scotland, and civil partnership in England/Wales is virtually the same as marriage in England/Wales.

I beleive that the laws in Northern Ireland and Wales are the same as in England, but people who have more knowledge might be able to correct or verify this.

England and Wales have the same legal system: Wales was a conquered country. Northern Ireland has a slightly different legal system.

I find it really interesting. Many of the older gay men I get into discussions with have been in a heterosexual marriage and left it when they “came out”, and also several others have said that they really prefer to keep their lifestyle free from common law or marriage based themes found in heterosexual relationships because they fear it may change the way the entire community behaves. It seems to me to be mainly the older men who have this view as far as I can see it, and much of the gay community is split on this whole issue.

Has anyone else noticed this, or am I alone in my observations?

A surviving civil partner will have exactly the same rights under a private pension scheme as a widow or widower - precisely what those rights are depends on the detail of the scheme. Quite a few private pension schemes - including the one which supports me in my dotage - already recognised same sex partners and have done for decades. See the Guardian’s Q&A dated 5 December 2005 - can’t work out how to do a link on this cardboard laptop I’m borrowing while on Christmas holiday.

We in the UK don’t share your horrible history with the “separate but equal” concept - plenty of info is on various sites, government and other, if you want to google. If there’s a signicant difference in the legal and financial benefits and responsibilities between marriage and civil partnership, well, I haven’t been able to spot it yet!

“Civil partnership” sounds like a step in the right direction, but not the destination. Separate-but-allegedly-equal makes everyone uneasy.

That depends. Scotland and England have been rubbing along together for a good long time, and for nearly 300 years had the same Parliament making laws for both.

However, the point Nick was initially raising was how civil partnership differs from marriage, and that’s an entirely different topic to how Scottish law differs from English law!