Gay Marriage | Great Britain | News | Peter Tatchell

BigGayDeal.com

Straight UK Couple Wants Gay Civil Partnership as Protest

A heterosexual UK couple have given only their initials to the council registrars at Islington Town Hall in hopes that they'll be able to enter into a civil parttnership, the Daily Mail reports:

Freeman "Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, both 25, are determined to become the first straight couple to wed in a civil partnership. The pair last night branded marriage 'an apartheid' that segregates straight and gay people. The civil servants, who live in Holloway, north London, and have been together nearly four years, said they want the same legal rights as a husband and wife. But they do not want to enter an institution that is closed to homosexuals. So, in the interests of equality, they are demanding that they be allowed to enter a civil partnership. Mr Freeman said: 'Ideally we'd have the option of a civil partnership or a marriage, regardless of whether we were straight or gay. '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.' He added: 'Civil partnerships are equality in all but name - so why not just have equality?"

UK activist Peter Tatchell is on board: "The ban on heterosexual civil partnerships is heterophobic. It is discriminatory and offensive. I want to see it ended so that straight couples like Tom and Katherine can have the option of a civil partnership. I applaud their challenge to this unjust law."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments


  1. My friends are also doing something similar - it's really inspiring to see straight people stand up and do the right thing. We need more people like this!

    This website is the perfect antidote to NOM Maggie Gallagher tactics!

    http://www.jeffandjill.us/

    They are so great!!

    Posted by: boyw0nder | Nov 12, 2009 8:42:22 AM


  2. Paging Bill, paging Bill... please report to the white courtesy phone and explain to us what these two "haterosexuals" are up to.

    Posted by: crispy | Nov 12, 2009 8:54:43 AM


  3. GOOD FOR THEM!

    Cheers you two, and good luck.

    Posted by: Strepsi | Nov 12, 2009 9:05:27 AM


  4. Does anyone know of a way to reach this couple to send them messages of thanks and support?

    Posted by: on | Nov 12, 2009 9:24:43 AM


  5. Hopefully their protest gets the right message across.

    Posted by: KFLO | Nov 12, 2009 9:34:28 AM


  6. Phil Roy's song Hope in a Hopeless World comes to mind. Kudos my straight friends. Best wishes for a long and prosperous love.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Nov 12, 2009 10:15:08 AM


  7. My cousin and his life partner have a child, a house and plans for more. But neither he nor she has any interest in getting married. It's not a particular stand for gay rights at all, they just think the institution is dead.

    I wonder if they're not right.

    Posted by: Rob | Nov 12, 2009 10:59:44 AM


  8. Civil partnerships are not equal to marriage. This haterosexual couple wants a civil partnership because it's easier to divorce in one. Notice how they only talk about getting into a civil partnership and not about how gay couples are excluded from marriage and how civil partnerships were set up specifically because haterosexuals didn't want gay people to be on a level playing field with them.

    Posted by: Bill | Nov 12, 2009 11:02:55 AM


  9. I would send them a civil union gift - they should post their registry!

    Posted by: Alex | Nov 12, 2009 11:21:17 AM


  10. Bill...did you read the brief? are you being sarcastic?

    "The pair last night branded marriage 'an apartheid' that segregates straight and gay people."

    Posted by: jonny | Nov 12, 2009 11:25:55 AM


  11. While this is great....it will actually just feed NOM and Maggie Gallagher. They will point at this and simply say 'SEE! We told you, those homos are destroying marriage. Now straight people don't want to get married. Whatever next...blah, blah, blah".

    Posted by: Gregus | Nov 12, 2009 12:45:49 PM


  12. Gregus,
    Actually that's not an argument that NOM / Maggie Gallagher can make. If marriage is seen as a discriminatory institution, and that erodes heterosexual support for marriage itself, that is an argument on OUR side actually. And Maggie Gallagher has admitted, in debates with Jonathan Rauch, that that is a possible concern, but she doesn't see it has having a good chance of happening.

    It's not marriage equality that is causing this couple to not get married, it's marriage discrimination. So, that's our argument, not theirs.

    Posted by: esurience | Nov 12, 2009 1:44:02 PM


  13. Link is not working. can u fix it to post the original article? I did a search on the daily mail and nothing came up.

    Posted by: TMP | Nov 12, 2009 2:24:06 PM


  14. Which one's the dude? No, no, good for them. It's just that pretty people get more attention and respect.

    Posted by: TANK | Nov 12, 2009 2:36:03 PM


  15. I caught these two being interviewed on the radio and what came across was less a concern for parity between gay and straight and more about giving straights the right to enter into a civil p/ship. Her view was that marriage was an essentially patriarchal institution of a byegone era which she did not feel was appropriate for her relationship. That was my understanding. Its given a different angle here though.

    Posted by: atheist | Dec 14, 2009 4:24:07 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Equality Arizona Lays Off Staff, Hasn't Offered Specifics« «