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."

Comments

  1. Rob says

    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.

  2. Bill says

    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.

  3. Gregus says

    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”.

  4. esurience says

    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.

  5. atheist says

    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.

Leave A Reply