I remember two market traders in London took out a civil partnership shortly after they were legalised amid widespread publicity.
Both were single and friends, neither were in a sexual relationship with each other or anyone else. But it meant that they could leave their property/pensions to each other and effectively protect each other in old age.
I suspect it is a wind up but since you are not obliged to be in a sexual relationship to have a civil partnership it is difficult to see a moral objection. In fact it would make a lot of sense.
In fact I would not mind betting that a large proportion of civil partnerships are elderly people who live together but not in a sexual relationship of any sort.
Our bishops should perhaps speak out to press for legislation to correct the iniquity that siblings who live together uniquely cannot take out a civil partnership, so the surviving sibling is are uniquely vulnerable when their brother or sister dies.
Didn't the American bishops try to float the idea of a civil partnership which would allow a situation like the one Paul, Bedfordshire describes: i.e., that non-marital pairs of people could gain certain mutual inheritance rights, etc.? I believe they were attempting to invoke the principle of double effect (perhaps not very appropriately, I don't know) in order to navigate the issue.
'Anonymous' comments will not be displayed. Please use your name or a pseudonym. If you wish to comment then I ask that you maintain a measure of good will. If you are unable to do so, then please go elsewhere.
Er - this is bona fide?
ReplyDeletePlease tell me that this is a joke
ReplyDeleteGet on with you.
ReplyDeleteJoke!
ReplyDeleteHahahaha!!!
ReplyDeleteI laughed!
ReplyDeleteInsert Anglo- before Catholic and it is no longer a joke!
ReplyDeleteLeft-footer and JAMC - did you really have to ask??
ReplyDeleteBones, you are very, very naughty - but I like you (and my explosive laughter freaked out the kitties!)
I remember two market traders in London took out a civil partnership shortly after they were legalised amid widespread publicity.
ReplyDeleteBoth were single and friends, neither were in a sexual relationship with each other or anyone else. But it meant that they could leave their property/pensions to each other and effectively protect each other in old age.
I suspect it is a wind up but since you are not obliged to be in a sexual relationship to have a civil partnership it is difficult to see a moral objection. In fact it would make a lot of sense.
In fact I would not mind betting that a large proportion of civil partnerships are elderly people who live together but not in a sexual relationship of any sort.
Our bishops should perhaps speak out to press for legislation to correct the iniquity that siblings who live together uniquely cannot take out a civil partnership, so the surviving sibling is are uniquely vulnerable when their brother or sister dies.
Didn't the American bishops try to float the idea of a civil partnership which would allow a situation like the one Paul, Bedfordshire describes: i.e., that non-marital pairs of people could gain certain mutual inheritance rights, etc.? I believe they were attempting to invoke the principle of double effect (perhaps not very appropriately, I don't know) in order to navigate the issue.
ReplyDelete... OK you got me with that! :)
ReplyDeleteSorry Lawrence but given the madness in the Church at the moment I really did have to ask
ReplyDelete