Good for the Islington registrar who has won her case that she need not register civil partnerships, even though they already do not need to be consummated. So what have they to do with homosexuality, really?
Well, the legislation fails to provide for unmarried close relatives.That was proof, as if proof were needed, that the point of that measure was to privilege homosexuality on the specious basis that it is an identity comparable to ethnicity or class, or even to sex (which is written into every cell of the body). Someone from Stonewall was trying to make that same silly point, which he clearly thought was self-evident, this evening.
That legislation must be amended immediately to allow unmarried relatives, whether of the same or of opposite sexes, to register their partnerships. Then there would be no problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Absolutely not! Get your own legislation - the gays fought long and hard for this.
ReplyDeleteThey never did any such thing. Civil partnerships appeared from somewhere in the early New Labour ether, and would have made more sense in the first place if they had been as I now propose.
ReplyDeleteThey already don't need to be consumated, presumably because nobody could either work out or bring themselves to specify what would or would not count. So they are not, and have never been, anything to do with sex.
It is just that, in their present inexplicable form, they privilege a certain (scientifically baseless and historically illiterate) concept of homosexuality. But that would be the easiest thing in the world to correct.