Should siblings be allowed to enter into civil partnerships?

[sp1814]

A point raised by Anne Widdecombe when CPs were introduced. She felt she couldn't vote for CPs as it excluded siblings.

Lord Tebbit has reiterated the unfairness of CPs in this regard.

Does he have a point? Should CPs be open to close relatives, as described in the following article?

http://tinyurl.com/73ou9j2

[rowanwitch]

And marriages for all those who want a formal union because of love

[EDDIE51]

The idea of a 'sibling partnership' seems just a way of avoiding death duties and inheritance tax no romance in it at all , just a financial convenience. So I consider it as a totally diffrent thing to a true 'partnership'
if as has been suggested it is also extended to 'friends' where would it end ? you would have to specify a time frame or a test of 'true friendship'
If this was all adopted I can see a demand for 'acquaintance' partner ships and 'good neighbor' partnerships. Why not include the family cat or dog and have a 'pet partnership' while we are at it? After all they do 'Doggie weddings' in the USA

[EDDIE51]

Here you go 'Doggie Weddings' for just $5000 . Sibling parthership is about as valid as this in my opinion.
http://news.yahoo.com...nities-171017513.html

[woofgang]

If people who marry or gay people who enter a civil partnership can get those tax and legal breaks, why should they be denied to a family member who looks after a parent or two siblings who support each other or two close friend?
Romantic love is not the be all and end all....and sexual love certainly isn't

[jno]

the least they could do is simply have a box on the tax form where you can nominate the partner of your choice regardless of who they are

You'll be nominating Katie Price, then, OG?

[Old_Geezer]

Nice thought but I doubt she would confirm the arrangement and reciprocate.

Er: yes Eddie, that is how I see it, romance or not is irrelevant to tax rules, an excuse at best. This is just a way to get advantage over others in society, mainly a financial advantage. And it's questionable why it should be allowed, and IMO clearly wrong if not available to all regardless of how they choose to live their life. If you think you can be financially better off naming the family dog as your 'partner', then good luck to you. Was it left a fortune in a relative's will ?

[sp1814]

It's a mess isn't it? If we go alon with Lord Tebbit's view, that a civil partnership should be open to non-sexual/romantic pairings - then it leaves gay couple with a stronger argument for same sex civil unions.

Unless I'm being a bit dense!

[woofgang]

and the problem with that would be?

[shaneystar2]

These sisters were denied any rights . I know it's abit old but nevertheless I can imagine there are people like this still floating around ..
http://www.dailymail....eaks-gay-couples.html
OK fair enough they had a home worth thousands but that could also apply to a gay couple with a home worth thousands .It could apply to a straight couple in the same circumstances .
Why should they be denied the rights that others have just because they chose to live together as siblings and looked after their parents and relatives.
It's discrimination ....simple as that .
They obviously come from a different age and have different values and looked after their relatives .I doubt thier claim was motivated from greed .

[woofgang]

^^ exactly this Shaney

[sp1814]

Shaney - but these sisters aren't a couple surely? They're simply two people who live together.

If headline should read 'Euro-court denies sisters the same tax breaks as married couples', wouldn't people say, "Yeah - because they don't have that relationship...they're not a couple like gay or straight couples".

[jno]

how would you distinguish legally between two sisters and two flatmates?

[naomi24]

Why should the nature of any relationship be an issue to anyone other than those involved? If two people want to make a legal agreement to safeguard their mutual interests, then so be it.

[sp1814]

naomi24 - because it could easily be used as a tax scam.

[naomi24]

It could be used as a tax scam now, SP. What proof do we have that those entering into CPs are genuine 'couples'. For all we know some of them could well be 'just good friends'.

[sp1814]

Yep - like traditional marriages. Hardly a day goes by without a story in the papers of dodgy marriag scams.

[naomi24]

I rest my case - for the time being. ;o)

[DaisyNonna]

What a can of worms! Define marriage. Define civil partnership. Sexual congress accepted? Fine. No problem. Siblings? ......

[EDDIE51]

There have been very many genuine cases of dogs and cats being left money in the will of the owner, in some cases £millions . So the idea of a 'partnership' with a dog or cat is not so ridiculous if it saved paying tax.
I restate my case that a CP must be only for very specificaly designated 'couples' or it is just going to be a tax aviodence scam. If we go on this way what about 'group marriage' already exists in places, is it not true that Muslims can have up to 6 wives? Mormons allow 'multi wife ' marriage as well , they call them 'sister wifes' a Mormon can have as many wifes as he can support .

[joko]

perhaps they should come up with something else that has mostly similar rules but isnt for couples and doesnt have romantic partnership overtones or a ceremony etc

something such as 'joining of interests', or 'cohabiting licence'