Network: 
News - Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle had their application for a civil partnership rejected this week. The 25 year old couple from London had expected this when they arrived at Islington Town Hall, but say they will now take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Head of democratic services John Lynch wrote: "I do not wish to comment on your views on marriage but would point out that part one of the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 states that a civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex and therefore we would not be able to take notice of your proposed civil partnership."
The couple responded: "Today we have been refused access to a legal institution because of our sexuality. We are saddened and disappointed. In a democratic state, all institutions should be open to all people. We are going to take legal advice and take it to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary."
The Civil Partnership Act of 2004 was introduced as an alternative to Civil Marriage for same sex couples. it has exactly the same rights, and Civil Marriage is non-religious. Why then does this legal partnership have to have two different names depending on the persons sexuality? That is the point being made by this couple. Either open up both partnerships and marriage to everyone, or combine them in one encompassing term. The people who allowed this act to pass in 2004 should really have noted the discriminatory wording of 'same sex couples' and not allowed it to pass - although that might have meant we'd still be fighting for the right to be legally recognised as a couple!
Comments:
(2)Add a comment
Wednesday 25 November
By allie
quite a rude awakening for the heteros. at least they will see what we go through. and yes, i just used the word "they" because that's how it feels like now. two sides: gay (and a few hetero gay rights supporters) and straight. i think everyone should go through at least one or two forms of discrimination in order to realize and understand how stupid it is. sad as it sounds, one must be a victim before anything else.
Reply
Friday 27 November
By LT
Allie, I think you missed the point here.
The couple is doing this intentionally, as a statement commenting on the ridiculousness of two different types of partnership that really only differ based on sexuality.
They're not being victimized, they're championing awareness for OUR rights, too. Which I is a wonderful thing, given they fact that they could just as easily get a civil marriage.
I think it's unfair to celebrate their misfortune, when it's truly an empathetic act. The last thing we need within the LGBT community is discrimination against people who aren't "one of us"; it only perpetuates the cycle of fear and hate.