Peter Tatchell
Gay rights campaigner and Director of the Peter Tatchell FoundationPeter Tatchell says couples should be able to pick and mix from a menu of rights and responsibilities to create a bespoke partnership agreement suited to their specific needs.
Ending the ban on same-sex civil marriage in 2013 was an equality milestone. So was the abolition in 2019 of the ban on different-sex civil partnerships. Two major discriminations were finally erased from the statute books. Both systems of relationship recognition and rights are now open to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Although they are legally separate and called different things, marriage and civil partnerships are basically the same in principle and practice. The latter is modelled on the former.
But if we were starting from scratch, would the marriage model be the one we’d choose? Both marriage and civil partnerships are one-size-fits-all. The legal rights and responsibilities are set in stone. They cannot be amended to consider the varied circumstances of particular couples.
It is Time for an Alternative
In modern societies, there is a huge variety of committed relationships. Most couples who want legal recognition for their relationship live together but others live apart. Some share their finances, others maintain financial independence. There are couples with children and those without them.
The law should reflect and support these diverse relationship choices and realities. The rigid model of relationship recognition – marriage and civil partnerships – is fine for most people and should be retained. But it’s not ideal for some couples.
These couples are still just as committed to each other as those who are married or civil partnered, but they’d prefer to secure legal recognition and rights via a more modern, democratic, flexible, and bespoke system. And why not? Shouldn’t there be legal space for an alternative?
From an ethical point of view, any two people who share a close, deep bond should have that commitment recognised in law. They ought to be eligible for reciprocal legal rights and responsibilities.
Instead of restricting these rights to people in romantic and sexual relationships, there is a strong case to extend these obligations and protections to cover all relations based on mutual care and commitment.
A Civil Commitment Pact
Supportive, loyal, and enduring relationships – whether between couples or close friends – are good for the people involved and have a wider social benefit. As well as enhancing an individual’s happiness and well-being, they strengthen a person’s ability to cope with adversity and diminish their dependence on the state. It is therefore in society’s interest to encourage and reward such relationships with legal validation.
I have proposed a new legal framework – a Civil Commitment Pact – that would allow people to nominate any ‘significant other’ in their life as their next-of-kin and inheritance beneficiary. This could be a partner, but it could also be a sister, carer, favourite nephew, or life-long best friend.
Many non-sexual enduring friendships are just as sincere, loyal, and enriching as relations between people in love. They, too, should have legal recognition. There is no good reason to restrict legal rights to people in romantic relationships. That discriminates against close friends who support each other through good times and bad, but who are not in a traditional love coupling.
Why shouldn’t two lifelong best friends have legal rights similar to a traditional couple? The main substantive difference in the nature of their relationships is that the latter have sex and the former don’t. Why should sex be privileged over friendship?
With one in two marriages ending in divorce, and a quarter of households comprising single people, friends now play an important, if not major, role in many people’s lives and support networks. Surely it is wrong to discriminate against two friends who have a strong, close bond just because they are not romantically involved and do not have sex?
It is unfair to deny single people the right to choose their preferred next-of-kin and to exclude them from the inheritance tax exemptions enjoyed by couples in marriages and civil partnerships.
As well as allowing people to nominate any significant person in their life as their next-of-kin and inheritance beneficiary, my proposed Civil Commitment Pact offers a new legal framework for couples in love. It would give them flexibility and choice with regard to their rights and responsibilities. They’d be able to select from a menu of rights and responsibilities to devise a tailor-made partnership agreement suited to their own particular needs. Some partners, for example, may want next-of-kin rights but not joint guardianship of children from a previous relationship. The law should let them make that choice.
Flexibility in the Future
Permitting couples to choose from a menu of rights and responsibilities has an additional virtue. It would require partners to sit down together and negotiate their obligations towards each other on each specific issue, such as property inheritance and the right to sign a partner’s death certificate and organise their funeral. This point-by-point negotiation would force them to think through, in detail, the full implications of entering a partnership agreement; winnowing out the less than 100% committed and increasing the likelihood of a strong enduring relationship.
With marriage and civil partnerships, however, there is no obligation for partners to discuss the details of their mutual rights and responsibilities. They simply sign a certificate, without any need to negotiate the particulars.
My proposed Civil Commitment Pact, giving rights to both couples and non-romantic close friends, offers a customised alternative to marriage and civil partnerships. It would benefit everyone without discrimination – single and partnered, couples and best friends. Hurrah!
