Talk:Civil Partnership Act 2004

Merger?

There seems to be a massive overlap between these two articles. Surely they could be merged? Thoughts? 83.217.190.69 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• My first thought would be to merge in the opposite direction. Either the Civil Partnership Act 2004 should remain a separate page referred to on the Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom page or become a section of the Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom article. There is a lot of information on the Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom page that wouldn't fit into an article about the Act. I will look at the two pages in more detail and post a further comment later. Road Wizard 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I noticed that you tagged both pages with a {{mergefrom}} tag instead of a pair of {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} tags. I have switch the tag on the Civil Partnership Act 2004 page to a {{mergeto}}. Road Wizard 16:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been editing simultaneously with Road Wizard. The following was written before I saw what (s)he had to say:

The difference between the two is that this concentrates on the Act of Parliament - it's part of a comprehensive List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 2000-Present, which is part of a listing going back to the year dot (or time immoral, to quote I forget who, maybe Peter Sellers in "Balham, Gateway to the South"). There are a lot of red links there, but it would be a pity not to have a pointer to this Act, as people might think that the subject wasn't covered in Wikipedia. Might I suggest reducing this article considerably, concentrating on the Parliamentary side, and, of the links at the bottom, retaining only the Drafts of the Act section and the link to the main WP article, and moving to the latter any other links not there already. I could have a go at this if you like.--GuillaumeTell 16:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to copy your comments to the Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom page. With the fixed tags, the discussion link has switched to the talk page of that article. :) Road Wizard 16:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Year dot being 1235 ;). Doesn't really seem to need merging as the Civil partnerships is quite long enough, though this one probably needs combing through to remove duplication. Kurando | ^_^ 09:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The merger discussion on this page has ended due to the correction of the merge tags. You may wish to copy your comments to the Talk:Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom page where the discussion is still in progress. :) Road Wizard 11:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now cut everything (I hope) that's duplicated in Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom except for the description of the legislation and its passage, removed internal duplication, got rid of the Merger tag and altered the italicised piece at the top to make it clear that Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom is where all the detail and discussion is. --GuillaumeTell 10:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Same sex couple

'However, the rights and responsibilities of a civil partnership are not limited to gay and lesbian couples; they are legally available to "almost any unrelated couple of the same sex".'

I'm not sure I really understand this statement. Surely any same sex couple is a gay or lesbian couple, whether they're homosexual or bisexual? Does it refer also to non-sexual partnerships? Hope someone can clear this up for me. NeonDaylight 05:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "couple". The word is used only rarely in the Act (mostly in Schedule 24!), which refers almost throughout to "civil partner(s)". It is perfectly permissable for two unrelated heterosexual people of the same sex to enter into a civil partnership, and they might want to do so if they live together and have shared assets and want each other to be entitled to such benefits as "widow's pensions" if one of them dies. I've no idea whether any such people have done so, however.

The Act doesn't require prospective civil partners to say anything about their sexuality - but then men and women who get married don't have to do so, either. It's not unknown in Britain for gay men and lesbians to marry people of the opposite sex (think Oscar Wilde, W. H. Auden, Elton John ...), or for heterosexual men and women to marry but not have sex (I can't prove this, of course!), especially if they marry at an advanced age for benefits such as companionship. --GuillaumeTell 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As per GuillaumeTell's comment, the same could be said for civil marriage and yet no such comment is made on the marriage article. It's also poorly written. Needs snipping out. Joel on the SOL 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Although I know very little about this law, I presume my change here is correct [1]. This is an important distinction as various partnerships mentioned are applicable to both same sex and opposite sex couples. For example, civil unions in New Zealand, registered partnerships in the Netherlands, all marriages mentioned. I presume opposite sex unions such as civil unions in NZ are recognised as marriages in the UK and if true, someone needs to add this Nil Einne 18:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked the UK department responsible for marriages etc. The response isn't that clear (I said it wasn't important) but it appears that civil unions between opposite couples will have no direct recognition in UK (although obviously they could choose to get married)

Schedule 20 only refers to civil partnerships. Obviously for opposite sex couples they can get married. For civil partnerships in New Zealand they can deposit their civil partnership document with us so long as one of the people is British.

Nil Einne 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

List at section Schedule 20

The list at Schedule 20 should reflect the relationships that are actually included in the schedule. I added a sentence explaining that the list does not reflect relationships created after 2005. I placed this just before the list, so this should serve as ample warning that the list does not include more recent developments such as those in some states in Australia; the US states of California, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington; and several countries in Europe. -Rrius (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and citations

Does anyone think that list of citations can be called neutral? BBC, Guardian, Independent - all left-leaning media outlets - as well as Stonewall. To be neutral, there should also be some presentation of the opposing views. I don't really want to read the Telegraph's views on the subject, but I'm not neutral. Wikipedia is supposed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.92.3 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

where does this apply?

It's not actually the UK, so which areas now allow civil partnerships? — kwami (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think it's not actually the UK? It's an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Civil partnership is allowed in the entire UK. It's just don't apply to Crown dependencies and overseas territories, which are not a part of the UK. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Civil Partnership Act 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518104801/http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/RightsAndResponsibilities/DG_10026937 to http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/RightsAndResponsibilities/DG_10026937
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.changingattitude.org.uk/news/newsitem.asp?id=72

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)