Two civil servants from Holloway arrived at Islington Town Hall on Tuesday, 24th November 2009 with the intention of giving notice of their intention to form a civil partnership. Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle had deceived Council officials into thinking that they were a homosexual couple by registering using only their surnames and initials.
The couple are determined to be the first heterosexual couple to form a civil partnership because they think that the institution of marriage is “an apartheid” that “segregates” people of different sexual orientations. They think that homosexuals should be allowed church weddings and civil weddings. Their aim is to have the same legal rights as husband and wife, but will refuse to marry until homosexuals are allowed to do so too.
The couple are being supported by homosexual rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell. Mr. Tatchell expressed his view that the couple are being discriminated against because of their sexuality. He called the law “heterophobic” and “offensive”. He said: “It’s a clear act of discrimination. Just as it’s wrong to discriminate against gay people, it’s wrong to discriminate against heterosexual people. I’m hopeful we can find a way to challenge it.”
Adrian Tippetts’ comment in The Guardian is revealing:
It may sound absurd to complain about something as seemingly trivial as the official name of a relationship. After all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. It hardly affects the quality of life, so why make such a fuss?
But we attach meaning and value to such names. Society generally considers marriage to be the gold standard relationship; anything else is counterfeit.… As a result, this legislation denied the one benefit to gay people that is cherished above all: social acceptance.
The Gallup Coexist Index 2009 revealed that 42% of non-Muslims and 100% of Muslims in the UK think that homosexual acts are not “morally acceptable”.
Tippetts goes on to claim that marriage has changed many times over the centuries and that the Bible endorses other forms of marriage, such as polygamy. He continues:
Religious institutions should be able to allow or deny gay marriages according to their interpretation. The church is welcome to its own view of morality, but that definition must stay within the church gate and not be imposed on the rest of society.
Mr. Freeman said: “Effectively marriage and civil partnerships are exactly the same—it's a duplicate law. The effects and legal processes are identical. The rights and obligations are identical.… Civil partnerships are equality in all but name, so why not just have equality?”
“We're the first straight couple in the country who have tried to get a civil partnership,” said Mr Freeman, who is hoping the couple have made history. Miss Doyle stated that she does not agree with “separate ceremonies for gay and straight couples” and that they do not agree with marriage. She does not want to condone the institution that is closed to homosexuals. They have therefore decided that civil partnership is the only alternative, but “can’t have it”.
They were given a letter of refusal by the Town Hall and are now planning to launch a legal challenge to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in the courts. They have yet to take legal advice, but plan to claim that they have a human right to non-discrimination on grounds of their sexual orientation. They say they will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if necessary.
Islington Town Hall is one of the most popular places to hold civil partnership ceremonies and has been mired in controversy since threatening to sack Lillian Ladele and demoting Theresa Davies, two Christian marriage registrars who both refused to perform civil partnership ceremonies. Lillian Ladele’s case is being considered by the Court of Appeal.
A spokesman for Islington Council responded: “The law dictates that a civil partnership is only for couples of the same sex. The council must follow the law and so we have not been able to accept Mr Freeman and Ms Doyle’s application for a civil partnership.”
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Director of the Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting Theresa Davies, said:
This is what happens when we abandon socio-cultural norms and our Judeo-Christian heritage; when we begin to construct social institutions around people’s wants and desires rather than around what the Bible teaches. It used to be clear what marriage meant; now we are increasingly seeing legal, social and moral chaos. This couple are free to marry and to benefit from the security that marriage brings, but they have chosen not to do so.
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 does not allow heterosexual couples to form unions. The Act allows homosexuals who have contracted partnerships to pass their estate to their partners on death without the need to pay inheritance tax. Both partners’ capital gains tax allowances can also be used to maximise tax avoidance. There was a concerted campaign at the time of the Bill’s passage through Parliament to allow spinsters who had lived together for many years as companions to be allowed to conclude civil partnerships so as to benefit from the tax avoidance regime. Heterosexual cohabiting couples do not benefit from civil partnerships either.
~~~~~~
On 23rd November David Cameron called a halt to the Law Commission’s plans to give cohabiting couples similar rights to married couples. Under the scheme, couples who had been cohabiting for two years or more would have been entitled to at least half of their partner’s estate if the partner died without leaving a will.
Media Links:
The Times: Straight couple in legal challenge to form a civil partnership
Daily Mail: David Cameron says 'no' to married rights for live-in couples