Uk courts decide all people aren't equal

[Dis86]

So, a little while back a law was passed which gave homosexual couples the same rights in regards to marriage as heterosexual couples. Something which in the process stepped on the toes of numerous religious groups and individuals.

Now however the courts have decided that heterosexual couples don't have the same rights as homosexual couples when it comes to civil partnerships.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146

Nice!

 

[markweatherill]

It's simple. One of them needs to have a sex change and then they can have their civil partnership.

 

[SilverTongue]

I really don't get this this, i thought the whole point of civil partnerships was due to the fact it wasn't legal for homosexual couple to marry however civil partnership gave them the same rights as a married couple. Why do we still even have civil partnerships given that the problem they were created to solve no longer exist?

 

[Sliver]

Lets hope that in time the right for Civil Partnerships will be extended to heterosexual couples too. The article made reference to the fact that they lost the case on a technicality and that the three Judges admitted that it was a breach of their human rights. So to me that sounds promising that change will come at some point soon.

The BBC's legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the couple had lost by the "narrowest of margins" as all three judges accepted that there was a potential breach of their human rights.

 

[SlugForAButt]

edit

 

[chanjy]

It's a fair point, and the origins of marriage and its connotations mean civil partnerships should be offered to all as some might not want to get married.

But the thread title is a little OTT, no?

 

[Clav]

The title is a little misleading, the courts found that their human rights had 'potentially' been breached but they were willing to allow the government more time to finalise legislation.

 

[Dis86]

But the thread title is a little OTT, no?

I'd say it's entirely accurate. They have denied equality therefore all people are not equal.

 

[Dis86]

The title is a little misleading, the courts found that their human rights had 'potentially' been breached but they were willing to allow the government more time to finalise legislation.

The judges haven't done their job. They are not there to say something has or hasn't potentially been done. They are there to judge if it has or hasn't. That is why they are judges. Therefore by passing the judgement they have they've decided against equality

 

[VincentHanna]

They are there to apply the rule of law to legal decisions.

 

[chanjy]

Things are very black or white in the world of Dis86... there's no subtlety allowed

 

[scorza]

Not surprised - white, cis, males need to check their privilege, and in the UK the law will do that for them.

 

[MookJong]

Never understood the need for this. I purposely had a non religious marriage ceremony and don't understand why people are so desperate to link marriage to the church? Marriage has existed in almost all cultures since the dawn of time. It existed for the Greeks and Romans long before the religious institutions we see today. It has existed in South American tribes and Inuit communities who have never seen a Bible or Quran.

What are the other arguments for needing both, genuinely am I missing something?

 

[Dis86]

Things are very black or white in the world of Dis86... there's no subtlety allowed

In the world of law you are either right or wrong. There is no middle ground. Guilty, not guilty. There is no third option. So yes, it's black and white.

People are either equal or they aren't. This ruling states that they aren't.

 

[Greebo]

So, a little while back a law was passed which gave homosexual couples the same rights in regards to marriage as heterosexual couples. Something which in the process stepped on the toes of numerous religious groups and individuals.

Now however the courts have decided that heterosexual couples don't have the same rights as homosexual couples when it comes to civil partnerships.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146

Nice!

To be fair the court decided the opposite and that it was a breach but decided to give the government more time to fix it.

 

[cu3ed]

Never understood the need for this. I purposely had a non religious marriage ceremony and don't understand why people are so desperate to link marriage to the church? Marriage has existed in almost all cultures since the dawn of time. It existed for the Greeks and Romans long before the religious institutions we see today. It has existed in South American tribes and Inuit communities who have never seen a Bible or Quran.

What are the other arguments for needing both, genuinely am I missing something?

Legal standing really, some just dont like the idea of marriage, simple as that.
I think its pretty obvious that no one in the tribe would try and steal back the husband belongings from the widow.
It was clear from day one a partnership was for Gay couples only, as they are the only ones that can truly fall in love and have feeling hurt.

 

[SilverTongue]

Never understood the need for this. I purposely had a non religious marriage ceremony and don't understand why people are so desperate to link marriage to the church? Marriage has existed in almost all cultures since the dawn of time. It existed for the Greeks and Romans long before the religious institutions we see today. It has existed in South American tribes and Inuit communities who have never seen a Bible or Quran.

What are the other arguments for needing both, genuinely am I missing something?

This is what I was getting at with my post as well, though not quite so well written

 

[dr_volki]

what's the actual difference between marriage and civil partnership?
form what i can see adultery cannot be used when disolving the partnership and you can't call yourself married but that's it.

don't see the point on this one really.

 

[Dis86]

To be fair the court decided the opposite and that it was a breach but decided to give the government more time to fix it.

The court has the ability to fix it there and then. There's no need to delay.

 

[SilverTongue]

The court has the ability to fix it there and then. There's no need to delay.

Wrong way round, the court has to rule based on the law, not change the law to allow things to happen