Will Legalities of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 Be Enough for Same-sex Couples - Term Paper Example

Running Head: Civil Partnership Act 2004 Will Legalities of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 Be Enough for Same-sex Couples No Marriage Allowed (Student) (Course) (Instructor) Will Legalities of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 Be Enough for Same-sex Couples No Marriage Allowed As of 20 July 2005, marriage between same-sex couples in Canada became legal (Thinking of Getting Married, 2005). In the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain, it was already legal. In February 2006, same-sex couples in the U.S. Commonwealth of Massachusetts were given the legal option to marry. In the UK, however, marriage continues to be illegal. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 which went into effect on 5 December 2005 is the alternative in the UK to marriage for same-sex partners with many financial and tax benefits not previously available to such a couple. But is it enough The changes made in the CPA avoided religious controversy over same-sex marriage by not exploring the subject. Even so, the tax changes have greatly benefitted those in a civil union by giving the rights to same-sex couples that previously applied only to married couples, even though they cannot have a religious ceremony. They are instead required to register for civil partnership just as marriage partners require a licence (Rights 2006; Summerskill 2005). Civil Partnership Act: Taxation Impact What is the impact of the Civil Partnership Act for same-sex partners in the area of taxation and would permission to marry give them benefits they don't yet have Also, since the Act has only recently gone into effect, what weaknesses might surface as people begin to utilise the changes There is some controversy over the fact that same-sex couples can register for a civil partnership status whilst heterosexual partners living together cannot. However, heterosexual partners have the option to marry, an option not available to same-sex partners. If same-sex partners do not choose to register their relationship, they, like the unmarried mixed-sex couples, will be considered cohabitants and will not be eligible for the tax changes (Rozenberg 2005; Webber 2005). Benefits & Rights In comparison with a civil marriage, registered civil partnerships will have the following equal rights and responsibilities: Benefits that are income-related will be considered in regards to joint treatment Tax, including inheritance tax Benefits from state pensions will also become a joint treatment The duty of providing maintenance to your partner and any children of either party Each party of the union will become a parental figure and thus become responsible for any children either person may have Inheritance in regards to an agreement of tenancy Domestic violence protection Access to compensation of fatal accidents Succeed to rights of tenancy The registration of civil partnership will have merit for the purposes of immigration Hospital visiting rights as next of kin Like traditional marriage, those that are involved in a civil partnership are exempt from being required to testify in court against one another Each partner has the responsibility to be assessed for child support, in the same manner as that of civil marriages Treatment comparable to that of a civil marriage in regards to life assurance Benefits that arise from Pension and Employment Welcome to CivilPartnershipInfo, Sec. 3, 2005 Areas of Discrimination before Civil Partnership Act 2004 The previous list of changes makes it clear that those engaged in civil partnerships had few legal rights prior to the CPA. In analysing the areas of change and looking back at some specific cases, it becomes evident that same-sex partners have been discriminated against over the years. The fact that it has taken so long to acknowledge and accept their relationship is an ethical concern that cannot be ignored. Will legality offset discrimination One of the areas in which tax discrimination was evident in the past was in inheritance rights. When a civil partner died after one couple had lived together for 45 years, the surviving partner had to face a huge tax bill and lost his partner's pension. In registering a death, the same-sex partner of a deceased accident victim was not allowed to make a legal identification of her partner's body and could not register her death. When one of two partners together for nine years became ill, medical treatment became a significant problem because the mother of the terminally ill patient was considered next of kin. She wanted everything possible done to keep him alive, even though the surviving partner knew his partner did not want this (Summerskill, 2005). At present, there are many similarities between the rights of a married couple and the rights of a civil partnership couple. So many, in fact, that a recent news story noted "civil partners in Britain enjoy greater rights than their counterparts in some other countries" (Rozenberg 2005). The only major differences between the rights of married couples and civil partners would appear to be in the area of sexual activity, i.e. promiscuity and ability to consummate a relationship. There is nothing comparable to these two areas in the CPA, but they do exist for married couples seeking a divorce. The marriage of a heterosexual couple can offer religious sanction as well as legal sanction, and in this regard sexual activity becomes an issue when filing for divorce. A civil partnership in the UK not only prohibits a religious ceremony, but the House of Bishops "affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership" (Goddard, 2005). A sexual union is a private affair, and in a relationship where procreation is impossible, only the couple knows whether a sexual union takes place. The religious aspects of same-sex couples should have no bearing on the legal aspects of the relationship. The Joyous Reality of legal Civil Partnerships Once the CPA was made active, same-sex couples were required to give notice if they wished to register a partnership. The Act went into effect on 5 December 2005 and the first registration date following that was 21 December 2005 (Marriage, Cohabitation, 2005). Among the hundreds of couples taking advantage of the new process were rock star Elton John and his Canadian-born partner of many years, David Furnish, who registered their partnership in the same building where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles were married earlier in the year (Elton John, 2005). Although some of the media headlines called the union a marriage, it did not meet that definition. Even so, perhaps one of the most beneficial results of the CPA is the fact that same-sex partners theoretically can garner the same respect as married couples. Giving full equality to same-sex couples across the UK has great cultural and social significance. The Protests Begin As with any celebratory occasion, however, once the cheering stops, the real world steps in, and the perfect plan might not be so perfect after all. It has been only about three months since the first same-sex partnerships were registered. Already, there are debates about the feasibility of this new legal procedure. One area that is causing contention is the determination of just what constitutes a same-sex partnership. One amendment that was not included in the bill but continues to be debated was the extension that would allow family members to be engaged in a same-sex partnership if they have lived together for over 12 years__why not include two siblings, parent and child, grandparent and grandchild It quickly became apparent, however, that such an amendment would not work, and it was not included in the Act. What if there were three siblings living together, or a grandchild and two grandparents, or a mother and three daughters The implications of including them in a partnership under CPA 2004 would be disastrous. The Act is set up for same-sex couples only, with just two people being affected by the laws. The rights of family members would need to be addressed in a completely different bill, for instance, a "Family and Domestic Partnership Bill" which could explore the areas relevant to family members (Summerskill, p. 5). The impact of any tax changes in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 depends on a same-sex couple meeting the criteria for acceptance as civil partners. The same limits apply as in a civil marriage. In England and Wales, the minimum age for marriage/civil partnership is 16, and written consent of guardian is required for those under 18. In addition, marriages/civil partnerships between close family or blood relatives are prohibited. Once eligibility is determined, taxation depends on the definition of marriage as it applies to partnerships. Because the treatment of marriage is no longer a simple task, a simplified definition was necessary. Therefore, the definition of "spouse" for purposes of the CPA simply refers to a person who is married, and this definition for "spouse" has been applied equally to a registered partner under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Response 2003, sec. 4.1.1) New legislation makes benefits available to any unrelated couple of the same sex, provided neither is married and as long as they register (Rozenberg 2005). The Tax Credit Act of 2002 was amended to include the benefits of the CPA, and registered same-sex couples have been able to claim tax benefits from 5 December 2005. Those who have chosen to register in a civil partnership are subject to all the same legal rights and responsibilities as spouses. For this reason, the legal implications should be clearly understood before a same-sex couple makes a commitment to register. For instance, once a couple registers, they must notify the change of circumstances within three months of the date of change to be entitled to make a joint claim with their partner (CC15290-15300 2005). Repercussions, Good and Bad The new benefits of CPA 2004 have opened the door to other benefits for same-sex couples. As of 3 January 2006, same-sex couples can adopt children together. Previously, they had to choose which partner would adopt the child, giving the other partner fewer parental rights. The law also has opened up adoption to unmarried heterosexual couples. As of 13 March 2006, the Equality Act of 2006 prohibited discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation which caused a backlash of protests from committed Christians who no longer can ban gays, lesbians, unmarried couples and people of other faiths from staying in their bed-and-breakfast establishments. Having a right does not always mean getting it will be simple. On 21 March 2006 one same-sex couple who had registered for a civil partnership ran into a great deal of difficulty in trying to make a simple name change on their EGG account, based on their civil partnership certificate. The issue was finally resolved. The company said it had been a matter of communication and word had now been given to all branches regarding the change in law (Campbell 2006). Conclusions Even though the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is being put to the test, it is mostly social issues that have arisen, with religious complaints, inadequate information on the new Act and the long-time discrimination against gays and lesbians throughout the UK topping the list (Fraser, 2003). As far as the actual tax benefits given to registered same-sex partners, so far there have been no complaints. However, in any legal situation, the problems are in the details, and it is within the minor areas of the law that problems might arise. In the meantime, the issue of marriage probably will be the next barrier to be crossed. The legal issues have been addressed, but what about the moral side of such a partnership with same-sex couples just as apt to embrace religious beliefs as heterosexual couples How long will it be before their inability to have a religious ceremony to celebrate their union becomes an issue The idea of the CPA is to have the same rights as a married couple under the law, but how can it be considered equal when the legal requirement for marriage is that one is born male and one is born a female. Even this definition is debatable. If one member of a marriage has a sex change, what then The controversy continues. References Allison, James. August 2003. 'Yes, but is it true . . .' The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry. Available from: http://www.clgs.org/4/response_alison_samesex.html [28 March 2006] Campbell, Denis. 2006. 'The Equality Act - B&B law sparks Bible backlash'. The Observer, 26 March 2006. Available from: http://www.pinkweddings.biz/civilpartresp.htm [28 March 2006] CCM 15290-15300. Undisclosed Partners: Same-Sex Couples. 2005. HM Revenues & Customs. Available from: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ccmmanual/CCM15300.htm [1 April 2006] Elton John 'ties the knot'. ABC News [online]. Updated 22 December 2005. Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1536140.htm [29 March 2006] Fraser, Giles. 'Evangelicals have become this century's witch burners. 14 July 2003. Guardian Unlimited. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,997620,00.html [28 March 2006] 'Legal Requirements in England and Wales'. n.d. [online] Available from: http://www.weddings.co.uk/info/legeng.htm [1 April 2006] 'Marriage, cohabitation, civil partnerships and divorce'. Directgov, 28 March 2006. Available from: http://www.direct.gov.uk/RightsAndResponsibilities/RightsAndResponsibilitiesArticles/fs/enCONTENT_ID=10026937&chk=/et8pN [28 March 2006] Response to "Civil Partnerships: A framework for the legal recognition of same-sex couples" (2003). Institute for Fiscal Studies Tax Law Review Committee, 4.1.1. Available from: http://www.ifs.org.uk/tlrc/civil.pdf [1 April 2006] Rights of Same-Sex Couples: Advice Guide. 2006. Citizens Advice Bureau. Available from: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/f_rights_of_same_sex-couples.pdf [28 March 2006] Rozenberg, Joshua. 10 June 2005. 'All-embracing partnership Act'. News.Telegraph, par. 13. [online]. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtmlxml=/news/2005/10/06/nlaw06.xml [28 March 2006] Shariff, Nahid. 2005. Tax and Civil Partnership Regulations 2005. HM Revenue & Customs. Available from: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/bulletins/tb80.htm#taxandcivil [28 March 2006] Summerskill, Ben. Parliamentary Briefing: Civil Partnership Bill. 12 October 2005. House of Commons. Available from: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2005/revbn28.htm [29 March 2006] 'Tax and the Human Rights Act 1998' [online]. 2/9/2000. The Chartered Institute of Taxation. Available from: http://www.tax.org.uk/showarticle.plid=55&n=379 [27 March 2006] 'Thinking of getting married in Canada' 14 September 2005. Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples [online] Available from: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/marriage_canada.htm [31 March 2006] Webber, Mary. 'Civil partnerships & living together'. November 2005. Advice Services Alliance [leaflet]. Available from: http://www.advicenow.org.uk/fileLibrary/pdf/LT_civilpartnerships.pdf [31 March 2006] Welcome to CivilPartnershipInfo.co.uk! The free guide for gay and lesbian couples in the UK considering a Civil Partnership, sec. 3. [online] Available from: http://www.civilpartnershipinfo.co.uk/ [1 April 2006] Read More