Society
Peter Tatchell proposes a Civil Commitment Pact
Published 07 July 2003
Why should the new civil partnerships be reserved for those in love or having sex?
The same-sex civil partnership scheme - announced by the equalities minister, Jacqui Smith - will remedy many of the injustices faced by lesbian and gay couples. But the scheme is heterophobic and homophobic. It is not available to unmarried heterosexuals and is a second-best version of marriage. Instead of marriage-lite for same-sex lovers, the government should have taken the opportunity to create a legal framework of partnership recognition that applied to gays and straights and which remedied the deficiencies of marriage law.
Any two people who share a close, deep bond ought to be eligible for reciprocal legal rights. Instead of restricting such rights to people in a sexual relationship, they should be extended to cover all relations based on mutual care and commitment. Supportive, enduring relationships - whether between lovers or friends - are good for the people involved and have a social benefit. They enhance a person's well-being and offer support in times of need. This tends to diminish dependence on the state. It is in society's interest to encourage and reward such relationships.
I propose a Civil Commitment Pact that would allow people to nominate as next-of-kin and beneficiary any "significant other" in their life. This could be a lover, but it could also be a sister, carer, nephew or best friend. Many non-sexual friendships are as sincere, loyal and enriching as relations between people in love. With one in two marriages ending in divorce, and a quarter of households comprising single people, friends play an increasingly important role in people's lives. It is wrong to discriminate against friends who have a strong bond just because they are not married and do not have sex.
Any new partnership legislation should allow people to select from a menu of rights and responsibilities and devise tailor-made partnership agreements. We see a huge variety of relationships and lifestyles. There are couples who live together, and those who live apart. Some share their finances; others maintain financial independence. The law should reflect and support these diverse relationship choices. The one-size-fits-all model - epitomised by marriage - is no longer appropriate.
My model would give a choice of legal rights to lovers and close friends. It would benefit everyone in a relationship of care and support, without discrimination.
How about it, Jacqui Smith?
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
