Civil Partnership Review (England and Wales): Resolution’s response to the Government Equalities Office

We have only responded to those questions applying to us.

Q1 : What are your views about abolishing the legal relationship of civil partnership once same sex couples can marry?

We are aware that both some same sex and opposite sex couples are attracted to a form of registered partnership that is not marriage, but which will give them similar protection to marriage.

That said, from a purely legal perspective, civil partnership should not be retained. Although it seems likely that the number of people who would enter into such a partnership in the future would be much lower if civil marriage were an alternative option, there is no legal reason for preserving this as an option. The institution of civil partnership is legally equivalent to marriage and was introduced to provide equivalent rights for same-sex couples.

Indeed, if civil partnership were to be retained as an option for same-sex couples, then it would also be necessary to extend this by making the option available to opposite-sex couples. Anything else would necessarily be discriminatory. This would then lead to a situation where a couple, whatever their sexual orientation would be able to choose between marriage on the one hand and civil
partnership on the other. Whilst this is already the position in a minority of jurisdictions, for example, the Netherlands, Quebec and South Africa it makes no sense where the legal status of each
would be the same. It would be an unnecessarily complicated solution and must serve to exacerbate the already difficult issue of securing international agreement on the recognition of a range of
possible partnership models. As the paper recognises, civil partnership was never intended for opposite sex couples as an alternative to marriage.

Q2 : Once marriage is available to same sex couples, do you think it should still be possible for couples to form a civil partnership as an alternative to marrying?

People who have entered into a civil partnership prior to the enactment of same-sex marriage, and decided not to convert their partnership to civil marriage, should be able to remain in a civil
partnership if they so choose.

As set out in our response to question 1, on a purely legal basis, it makes little sense to allow civil partnership registration once there is provision for same sex marriage.

Q3 : What are your views about extending civil partnership to opposite sex couples?

If the option of civil partnerships for same sex couples is to be retained, then civil partnerships must also be available to opposite sex couples in order to avoid discrimination. (The availability of such partnerships would still not though protect people left vulnerable under the current law, often women with children with no financial provision because their long term partners would not or
could not marry them, and likewise be unwilling to enter into civil partnerships.) Please also see the third paragraph of our response to question 1.

Q6 : Are there any costs and benefits which are not included in this document linked to:
a) Abolishing the legal relationship of civil partnership and converting existing civil partnerships
into marriages.
b) Stopping new civil partnerships being registered, but retaining existing ones.
c) Opening up civil partnership to opposite sex couples.

Resolution is not aware of any costs and benefits not included in this document.

Q7 : Are there any detailed implementation issues which are not included in this document linked to:
a) Abolishing the legal relationship of civil partnership and converting existing civil partnerships into marriages.
b) Stopping new civil partnerships being registered, but retaining existing ones.
c) Opening up civil partnership to opposite sex couples.

Resolution is not are of any implementation issues not included in this document.

Q8 : Are there any proposals for changes to the legal terminology and processes for forming civil partnerships which are consistent with civil partnership being different from marriage?

We do not see the need for any such changes. It seems to us that this would require a separate, and in our view unnecessary, review of the options for civil partnership and what the nature of future civil partnerships should be.

Q9 : Are there other options for civil partnership which have not been raised so far but which are within the scope of the review and consistent with its principles?

We do not believe so. However, there is a need to consider further some of the private international law aspects of same-sex marriages, unions and civil partnerships formed abroad. There is a problem in that you can enter into one type of a relationship in one jurisdiction and then move to another and the status of your relationship can suddenly become something very different from the one you entered into e.g. a French PACS is a specified relationship under schedule 20 of the CPA 2004 – if an opposite sex-couple enter into a PACS in France and move to England their relationship is not recognised whereas an opposite couple will be (effectively) married.

Q10 : Are there people who share a relevant protected characteristic other than those identified above who would be particularly affected by a decision to make, or not to make, one or more of the potential changes to civil partnership highlighted in section 3.1?

Resolution is not aware of any people who share a relevant protected characteristic other than those identified in the consultation paper.