Marriage and Civil Partnerships in Modern British Society

The significance of marriage varies across the world. It is difficult to define marriage in a way that could apply to all marriages, because marriage means whatever the couples marrying take it to mean. It is a matter of perception. The difficulty of defining marriage reflects the cultural, religious and ethnic diversity of our society today. The law in Britain has sought to recognize marriage as a contract or a status symbol. Although civil partnership act provides same-sex couples with similar legal rights that are given to spouses, the symbolic significance of not allowing same-sex marriage is far greater than the legal consequence. Cynics will argue that by not allowing same-sex couples the label of marriage, a homophobic message is sent. While, cohabitants are deemed with a lower status compared to spouses or civil partners, as the law has given them insufficient remedies on separation. Several people are sympathetic with the vulnerable position of cohabitants and want to see fairer outcomes. However, to a great extent, the disadvantaged treatment of cohabitants can be justified when considering the potential disadvantages of imposing legal remedies.
Traditionally, marriage has been seen as the “voluntary union…of one man and one women, to the exclusion of others.” This definition of marriage continues to be significant today, as same-sex couples are still excluded from the statutory right to marry. According to s.11 (C) Matrimonial Causes Act, parties to marriage must be male and female, otherwise the marriage will be rendered void. The Government recognized the need for change, but instead of extending marriage to include same-sex marriage, they introduced a separate category of civil partnership that can only be entered by same-sex couples (s.3 (1)).
The 264 sections and 30 schedules of the civil partnership act provide same-sex couples with

Bibliography: * Standley, K. “Family Law” (7thedn, Palgrave Macmillan 2010) * Welstead, M., and Edwards, S * Cretney, S. “Same Sex Relationships: From Odious Crime to Gay Marriage” (1stedn, OUP 2006) * Mallender, P., and Rayson, J * Hodgkinson, L. “The Complete Guide to Investing in Property” (5thedn, Kogan Page Limited 2010) * Sendall, J “Family Law Handbook” (3rdedn, Oxford University Press 2012) * Schauer, F. “Generality and Equality” (1997) 16 [Law & Philosophy] 297-97 Articles & Journals: * Auchmuty, R, “What’s so Special About Marriage? The Impact of Wilkinson v Kitzinger” (2008) 20 CFLQ [Child and Family Law Quarterly] 475. * Eekelaar, J, “Why People Marry: The Many Faces of an Institution” (2007) 41 FLQ [Family Law Quarterly] 413. * Bamforth, N “The benefits of Marriage in All but Name? Same-Sex Couples and the Civil Partnership Act 2004” (2007) 19 CFLQ [Child and Family Law Quarterly] 133. * Scherpe, Jens M “Equal but Different?” (2007) 66(1) Cambridge Law Journal. * Bailey-Harris, R “Law and the Unmarried Couple- Oppression or Liberation?” (1996) 8 CFLQ [Child and Family Law Quarterly] 137. * Leigh, S., and Barry, D “Cohabitation: Compare and Contrast the Australian System” (2011) FL [Family Law] 404. * Deech, R “Cohabitation” (2010) 40 FL [Family Law] 39. * Hess, E “The Rights of Cohabitants: When and How Will the Law be Reformed?” (2009) 39 FL [Family Law] 405. * Spencer, K “Same Sex Couples and the Right to Marry- European Perspectives” (2010) 6(1) Cambridge Law Journal. * Wardle, Lynn D “ Is Marriage Obsolete?” (2003) 10 [Michigan Journal of Gender and Law] 189. * Hope, C “We will legalize gay marriage by 2015, says David Cameron” (telegraph.co.uk 2012) < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9425174/We-will-legalise-gay-marriage-by-2015-says-David-Cameron.html> accessed 11 December 12 * “Cohabitation: The Law Commissioner’s Recommendations for Reform of the Law” (familylawweek.co.uk 2007) http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed743 * “Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death” (lawcommission.justice.gov.uk) [ 2 ]. Bamforth, N “The benefits of Marriage in All but Name? Same-Sex Couples and the Civil Partnership Act 2004” (2007) 19 CFLQ [Child and Family Law Quarterly] 133 [ 3 ] [ 4 ]. Hess, E “The Rights of Cohabitants: When and How Will the Law be Reformed?” (2009) 39 FL [Family Law] 405. [ 6 ]. Spencer, K “Same Sex Couples and the Right to Marry- European Perspectives” (2010) 6(1) [Cambridge Law Journal]. [ 9 ]. Bamforth, N “The benefits of Marriage in All but Name? Same-Sex Couples and the Civil Partnership Act 2004” (2007) 19 CFLQ [Child and Family Law Quarterly] 133 [ 10 ] [ 11 ]. P Mallender and J Rayson, “The Civil Partnership Act: A Practical Guide” (1stedn, Cambridge University Press 2005) 24. [ 13 ]. Bamforth, N “The benefits of Marriage in All but Name? Same-Sex Couples and the Civil Partnership Act 2004” (2007) 19 CFLQ [Child and Family Law Quarterly] 133 [ 14 ] [ 16 ]. Sendall, J “Family Law Handbook” (3rdedn, Oxford University Press 2012) 86. [ 17 ]. Bamforth, N “The benefits of Marriage in All but Name? Same-Sex Couples and the Civil Partnership Act 2004” (2007) 19 CFLQ [Child and Family Law Quarterly] 133 [ 18 ] [ 22 ]. Cretney, S “Same Sex Relationships: From Odious Crime to Gay Marriage (1stedn, OUP 2006) 25. [ 25 ]. Scherpe, Jens M “Equal but Different?” (2007) 66(1) [Cambridge Law Journal] [ 26 ] [ 27 ]. Bamforth, N “The benefits of Marriage in All but Name? Same-Sex Couples and the Civil Partnership Act 2004” (2007) 19 CFLQ [Child and Family Law Quarterly] 133 [ 28 ] [ 29 ]. Auchmuty, R, “What’s so Special About Marriage? The Impact of Wilkinson v Kitzinger” (2008) 20 CFLQ [Child and Family Law Quarterly] 475. [ 30 ]. Wardle, Lynn D “ Is Marriage Obsolete?” (2003) 10 [Michigan Journal of Gender and Law] 189. [ 31 ]. Scherpe, Jens M “Equal but Different?” (2007) 66(1) [Cambridge Law Journal] [ 32 ] [ 35 ]. Scherpe, Jens M “Equal but Different?” (2007) 66(1) Cambridge Law Journal.