Same-sex civil partnerships
AFTER MANY years of campaigning by gay and lesbian activists
New Labour has introduced the Civil Partnerships Bill, which is currently going
through the UK parliament. The bill sets out to create recognition of lesbian
and gay partnerships, introducing the concept of ‘civil partnerships’. This will
open up most of the legal benefits of marriage for lesbians and gay men.
The bill also contains provisions for the dissolution of
civil partnerships in line with the law for divorce. The same court orders are
available for disputes over finances and children as in divorce law.
Does this satisfy the longstanding demand for equality with
married couples? The only answer to this is, ‘yes and no’. While civil
partnerships are very similar to marriage they do not completely satisfy the
demand for equality.
That reform is necessary cannot be denied. At present,
lesbian and gay couples are disadvantaged. On separation, shared property is
dealt with on a very inflexible basis. Each partner only gets what they put in
(for example to the purchase of a home) either in money or in recognition of the
financial enhancement of assets.
Many couples have problems from hostile families, who will
be recognised as next-of-kin regardless of the strength of any relationship.
This can affect medical treatment. A gay man or lesbian’s family can give
consent to treatment in emergencies, but a partner cannot. Partners are
sometimes frozen out of funeral arrangements or inheritance. On death,
inheritance tax is payable by a surviving unmarried partner in respect of assets
passed from their deceased lover. The limit for inheritance tax is low enough to
be below the value of many houses, especially in London and the South East, so
the survivor may have to sell up and move out of their home to settle tax bills.
The bill addresses most of the issues that arise. However,
it has only had a qualified welcome from campaigners. Much of the criticism
focuses on the fact that it is not marriage. Instead, a new form of legal
relationship is created. For many, the most important reason for seeking a
change in the law was to enable lesbians and gay men to have an official and
public recognition of their relationships. Most couples marry to demonstrate
their commitment to each other in public. Civil partnerships may become seen as
having a second-rate status, and as a substitute for marriage.
Linked to this is the criticism that civil partnership
ceremonies will not be allowed to take place at religious premises. For some
this is seen as a violation of their rights to express religious feeling.
A very important criticism of the bill is that equality is
not granted on pension rights. At present there is no obligation for pension
schemes to pass benefits to a surviving unmarried partner of a pensioner. The
bill grants automatic inheritance of pension rights to partners of anyone in a
public-sector pension scheme. This is not granted when the pension scheme is
private, whether it is an occupational or a private pension. The matter is left,
as at present, to the employers and financial institutions which run such
schemes.
By including such discrimination, New Labour again shows
that it is a party of big business. Equality is secondary to the interests of
big business and the City of London. To grant full equality would involve
ministers in regulating their friends in financial capital and hitting profits.
Further discrimination will continue because the bill gives
no rights to heterosexual unmarried couples. Such couples may face many, if not
all, of the problems facing gay and lesbian couples now. The inheritance tax
trap will face them, as will the problems that may arise if family members
disapprove of a relationship. Of course, this also affects gay and lesbian
couples who for whatever reason do not wish to become ‘civil partners’. This is
a problem that has exercised the minds of many legal experts who have examined
the issue. And is not easily resolvable. At what stage of a relationship should
couples be granted rights? On co-habiting or after some years together? Perhaps
on some form of registration so that the relationship is recorded for public
knowledge?
If left unresolved, the issue could be used to stir up
anti-lesbian and gay feeling. Reactionaries may claim that gay men and lesbians
are being granted special rights.
Campaign group Outrage! has suggested that everyone should
have the right to appoint (and if they wish, to un-appoint) a ‘next of kin’, who
would have the right, for example, to consent to medical treatment or have
inheritance rights.
The starting point for socialists has to be the need for
equality. Discrimination against lesbians and gay men is one of the tools used
to divide workers. We should broadly support the bill as a step towards
equality, without hesitating to point out and campaign against its failings. We
also recognise that it has not been granted as a gift from above. Capitalist
politicians do not grant reforms from the goodness of their hearts. The bill is
the result of many years hard campaigning, as are other reforms that have been
won under New Labour.
Socialists also support the democratic right to freedom of
religious expression. However, there is no reason why partnership rights should
be linked to religious ceremony. We would support civil registration of all
partnerships. Should the partners then wish to have the endorsement of their
religion, that is up to them.
We would also support moves similar to those proposed by
Outrage! to give rights to all couples, whether or not they wish to get married
or enter into civil partnerships. However, the difficulties in coming up with a
workable proposal that have taxed the minds of the legal experts arise from
fundamental problems with the issue of property rights in a capitalist society.
People’s standard of living depends on their class of birth or, at best, their
skills at playing the lottery of the capitalist economy.
One of the ways in which capitalism preserves itself is by
the transmission of property down generations. Thus, members of the ruling class
can pass their position in society on to their sons and daughters. Resolving the
problems that arise and trying to ‘modernise’ capitalism to fit its legal
systems to the way working- and middle-class people actually live is very
difficult for the system’s thinkers.
A socialist society would provide decent housing, security
in old age and a living income to everyone whether or not they were married or
in relationships. Proper child care and benefits would remove the need for many,
mostly women, to rely on the income and wealth of their partner. The fear of
poverty on leaving a relationship which might be abusive or simply no longer
emotionally rewarding could be removed.
Partnership rights for everyone could become solely about
the commitment of people to each other and the recognition of such commitment by
society at large. This change in itself would transform relationships and lead
to a greater freedom and equality within them. To achieve true equality requires
not just the fight for reforms but also for socialism.
Greg Randall
|