9 Pages
2255 Words
Family Law Assignment: Summery of Civil Partnership Act 2004
Introduction of Marriage or Family Law Assignment
Get free written samples by our Top-Notch subject experts and Assignment Writing Service team.
The main objective of the civil partnership act 2004 is to permit the couple who are of same sex so that they are abled to get a legal recognition of their relationship through formation or an incorporation of the civil partnership[1]. They as a couple are also allowed to do the same by registering as civil partners where they are of same gender or same sex. They must have not already married in a legal manner or have not in the civil partnership. They should not be within the restricted number of degrees of the relationship.
They both must have an age of sixteen years or more and if any of them is under the age of eighteen years old, then if the place of registration is Northern Ireland or England and Wales, then the requirement says it is mandatory to obtain the consent of prescribed body or prescribed authority.
This civil partnership act 2004 is also responsible for setting out legal consequences of incorporating civil partnership under the act. This act also includes responsibilities as well as the rights of civil partners who are registered under the act. The act also includes the rights of such participants who has been cohabiting the relationships in long-term duration but not have incorporated marriage legally or formed civil partnership under the act. Under the act of civil partnership act 2004, there has not been any differences has been observed, where the rights and obligations which has been accorded to the opposite sex and this cohabiting the similar sex couples. However, there are major differences between the liabilities and rights given to the couple who are of same sex and the liabilities and rights given to the couple who are of opposite sex or married couples. The act has also been marked for penult mating the step in the legal manner towards recognizing the partnerships of same sex through marriage act 2015 or the partners who are of same sex and had been accessing[2] the marriage to that similar of opposite sex partners, and there is no longer availability of civil partnerships.
How civil partnership act 2004 bill has proposed to further extension by the state regarding formal recognition of the relationship of a couple?
With reference to the case law, Steinfeld and Keidan v Secretary of state of education, it was held by the judge Andrew that there was a dismissal of the application of opposite sex claimant couple for judicial review. It is where the decision of Steinfeld has been making clear that there is no such choice are open to the couples who are of opposite sex. In the review of the year 2014, where there was a discussion regarding equal love campaign, but it was also advised by the government that there was no evidence of validating that the couples of opposite sex having long term committed relationships and they are willing to get legal recognition but have some ideologically objections towards the marriage. This couple Steinfeld and Keidan were example of such couple and their issues has been highlighting that there was an urgent need of this resolution. There were also two interrelated issues which has been also raised by the judge Andrew were whether it should be determining the character of discriminating such claim. This discrimination might be either substantive or procedural or secondly, it might get underpinned by liberty or equality in the society. The reply came that there is no substantive kind of thing under this differential treatment but there was a presence of evident treatment and this must not be considered important. Now, if such claim is equality based then law is discriminating where law fails in treating all people equal in an unallowable manner. And if such claim is liberty based, then law is also discriminating where law is depriving liberty to which everyone has been entitled. Therefore, concerning the aforementioned case law, the civil partnership act has been proposing towards the further extension by the state which is in relation with the formal recognition of a couple.
Is this a desirable development in the history of family law?
Even if there is no comparison to the opposite sex couples and same sex couples, it has been considered by the government that there is maintenance of status quo and that is justified in the short term. The extension of conversion of the rights that are permitted to opposite sex couples for further conversion of their civil partnership to the marriage[3]. While there is consideration of such responses for further consultation, one as a couple might create several risks through incorporation of confusion and uncertainty about their future rights. This decision might not be desirable in the society in the history of family law in the society.
Based on the provisions held by the President during the 2004 Act stated, which traditionally prevented the public acknowledgement and also made it impossible for concluding the marriage between individuals of the same sex, that this activity did not violate the rights fended by Article 12 or Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. According to the opinion of the Potter P’s, the Parliament of the European Union regulated legislations in the 2004 Act to enact a formal agreement to establish the rights, responsibilities, benefits and advantages of civil marriage between the individuals of the same sex and also to eliminate the legal, communal and economic disadvantages which were traditionally enforced on the individuals in a same-sex relationship. The existing inequality and the scope of this inequality where Potter P acknowledged that the discrimination of same-sex relationships functioned as a valid purpose, also stood fair and appropriate and remained within the Convention States' margin of appreciation.
Is this the most persuasive debate and why?
The question of discriminating against same sex partners has come before the high court in the year 2006. This was the time when both Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, the professors of British university have legally married in the year 2003. The places like British Columbia and Canada have seek the country United Kingdom to give recognition to their marriage[4]. This process of seeking recognition of the marriage were declined by the state with the reason that the marriage was not being recognised under the law of Britain or United Kingdom. Following the rules of civil partnership act 2004, that marriage was converted into civil partnership. The couple have taken action regarding the same and has sued for having a legal recognition of their marriage. They have also argued that it was legalised in the country where it has been executed[5]. They also have met such need of recognising the marriages which are known as overseas marriages. And therefore, for this reason this must be treated in same manner or similar to the opposite sex couples. They also has rejected the plea of converting their marriages into civil partnership because they believed that it had been a lesser substitute by both symbolically as well as practical.
The battle fought by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger might have been lost that time, but further came an introduction of the same sex marriage because this ended with a coalition of the decision of the government to enact the act known as Marriage of same sex couples act in the year 2013. It might be considered as their win. However, this act does not sought to give the same rights to marry which are enjoyed by heterosexual couples or opposite sex couples. This act has included some specified provisions for the protection of the couples from the individuals or the religious organisations who has not been willing to introduce or to solemnise the same sex marriages. And the church of England was also not given an entitlement[6] under this act for taking decision on the same sex marriages.
Conclusion
It is thereby concluded that the government must forthwith simply extension of civil partnerships to couples of opposite sexes. This fact has seen no differences between marriage outside of the church and the civil partnerships held in court and that is not the point. For some the people like the appellant in this case that is Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, marriage should not be considered a label because it is more than a label. The marriage must be a state of mind and this gives a facilitation to the couples who must have an entitlement of securing their family relationships which are a matter of their choices.
Summary of the post
This post provides insight into the primary objective of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to eliminate the discrimination faced by individuals in a same-sex relationship and also to provide legal recognition to practice the human rights established for such a group of people. This post also expands the incorporation of legal provisions, responsibilities and rights under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. This post also determines the differences in the obligations and rights between the relationship of same-sex and the relationship of the opposite sex[7]. Also, further in the post a case law of Steinfeld and Keidan v Secretary of state of education based on the extension of the proposed provision of civil partnership act 2004 for the formal recognition of the same-sex relationship by the state and by the government. This post also discussed the recognition for same-sex relationships by the President and Parliament of the European Union as well. The most important discussion in the post is the effectiveness of the debate for determining and eliminating the discriminating factor of same-sex relationship[8].
The civil partnerships have made available to the opposite sex couples, the priority is to resolve the position in the long term. This includes conversion rights for the civil partners. This is done for bringing further regulations at the forward level. It is also known how long opposite-sex couples have been waiting for the opportunity to give formal relationships. This act gives them a right to enjoy stability and also gives other entitlements and rights so that other couples also may enjoy. Also, this development has been considered as the final legislative procedure.
References
Aspan, Henry. "The Role of Notaries in the Registration of the Establishment of Commanditaire Vennootschap (CV) through the Business Entity Administration System." Scholar International Journal of Law, Crime, and Justice, e-ISSN 26173484 (2020): 463-467.
Jackson, Sarah E., Ruth A. Hackett, Igor Grabovac, Lee Smith, and Andrew Steptoe. "Perceived discrimination, health and wellbeing among middle-aged and older lesbian, gay and bisexual people: A prospective study." Plos one 14, no. 5 (2019): e0216497.
Jaspal, Rusi. "Why a Social Psychology of Gay Men?." In The Social Psychology of Gay Men, pp. 3-15. Palgrave Pivot, Cham, 2019.
King, Andrew, Kathryn Almack, and Yiu-Tung Suen. Older lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people: Minding the knowledge gaps. Routledge, 2018.
Lamont, Ruth. Family Law. Oxford University Press, 2022.
Murray, Kath, and Lucy Hunter Blackburn. "Losing sight of women's rights: the unregulated introduction of gender self-identification as a case study of policy capture in Scotland." Scottish Affairs 28, no. 3 (2019): 262-289.
Ryan, John. "Gender identity laws: The legal status of global sex/gender identity recognition." LGBTQ Policy Journal 8 (2018): 3-16.
Tasker, Fiona, Naomi Moller, Victoria Clarke, and Nikki Hayfield. "New frontiers of family: LGBTQ people pushing back the boundaries of family." Journal of Family Issues 39, no. 18 (2018): 4127-4132.
[1] Aspan, Henry. "The Role of Notaries in the Registration of the Establishment of Commanditaire Vennootschap (CV) through the Business Entity Administration System." Scholar International Journal of Law, Crime, and Justice, e-ISSN 26173484 (2020): 463-467.
[2] Murray, Kath, and Lucy Hunter Blackburn. "Losing sight of women's rights: the unregulated introduction of gender self-identification as a case study of policy capture in Scotland." Scottish Affairs 28, no. 3 (2019): 262-289.
[3] Lamont, Ruth. Family Law. Oxford University Press, 2022.
[4] Ryan, John. "Gender identity laws: The legal status of global sex/gender identity recognition." LGBTQ Policy Journal 8 (2018): 3-16.
[5] Jaspal, Rusi. "Why a Social Psychology of Gay Men?." In The Social Psychology of Gay Men, pp. 3-15. Palgrave Pivot, Cham, 2019.
[6] Tasker, Fiona, Naomi Moller, Victoria Clarke, and Nikki Hayfield. "New frontiers of family: LGBTQ people pushing back the boundaries of family." Journal of Family Issues 39, no. 18 (2018): 4127-4132.
[7] King, Andrew, Kathryn Almack, and Yiu-Tung Suen. Older lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people: Minding the knowledge gaps. Routledge, 2018.
[8] Jackson, Sarah E., Ruth A. Hackett, Igor Grabovac, Lee Smith, and Andrew Steptoe. "Perceived discrimination, health and wellbeing among middle-aged and older lesbian, gay and bisexual people: A prospective study." Plos one 14, no. 5 (2019): e0216497.
