Much in the press recently about marriage and civil partnerships. Lord Alli is proposing an amendment to the Equality Bill, currently being debated, to allow civil partnerships to be registered in churches, synagogues etc. Apparently this is legally prohibited at the moment but certain smaller denominations want to venture into this area. The amendment will make it clear that this activity is permissable not mandatory. Fair enough.
What I don't understand is the strange editorial in the Times on 24 February, written by a gay man, running down the whole idea of marriage and suggesting a further amendment to the Equality Bill allowing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. Doesn't he realize we've had these for many years ........ they are known as Registry Office Weddings! And many people use them. They give the option of a religious (in a church) or a non-religious (in a Registry Office or one of the new civil venues) (civil) wedding.
According to the writer of the editorial the institution of marriage is in steep decline and heterosexual couples would jump at the chance of a civil partnership along the lines of the French model. Now I know absolutely nothing about the French model for civil partnerships but, according to the journalist, following the French model could "result in hundreds of thousands of couples, many with children, entering into legally protected partnerships that otherwise they would not". Apparently, the difference between this civil partnership and a civil wedding is that the former can be ended by a letter from either partner. Excuse me! ............. He's only just stated this is a legally protected partnership. Where exactly is the protection if the arrangement ceases on the receipt of a letter? If this is what they want, they might just as well just live together in the first place as many seem to do anyway. We don't need a strange grade of existence that is neither one thing nor the other. What we need is marriage (whether hetero- or homo- sexual couples) and not-marriage. Simple.