Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 241–259 | Cite as

Sex and the civil partnership act: the future of (non) conjugality?

Article

Abstract

This article considers the transgressive and transformative possibilities in the sexual silences of the U.K.’s Civil Partnership Act 2004. The absence of a consummation requirement and adultery as a specific ground of dissolution do open up some possibilities but are not unproblematic. These issues are explored in the context of the England and Wales Law Commission’s apparent ‘return’ to a conjugal model in its forthcoming consultation on cohabitation. It is concluded that though the Act may open up possibilities for expanding the legal recognition of relationships beyond those that are sexual, this raises concerns about the further privatisation of care as well as increased state intervention in relationships. Instead, I argue that the purpose and function of relationship recognition should be deconstructed and separated from ideology and romantic mythology about what families and relationships are and should be. If it does wed itself so closely to the conjugal marriage model in the consultation document, the Law Commission will miss a valuable opportunity to ask important questions about the purpose and function of relationship recognition.

Keywords

Civil Partnership Act cohabitation conjugality marriage same-sex relationships 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahmed, K. & Hinsliff, G., “Gay Couples Win Full Rights to ‘Marriage”’, The Observer March 28, 2004Google Scholar
  2. Auchmuty R. (2004). Same-Sex Marriage Revived: Feminist Critique and Legal Strategy. Feminism and Psychology 14(1):101–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auchmuty, R., “Out of the Shadows: Lesbian-Feminist Silence and Civil Partnerships” (Paper presented at the American Law and Society Conference, Las Vegas 2005)Google Scholar
  4. Bala N. (2003). Controversy over Couples in Canada: The Evolution of Marriage and Other Adult Interdependent Relationships. Queen’s Law Journal 29:41–102Google Scholar
  5. Barker N. (2004). For Better or For Worse? The Civil Partnership Bill [HL] 2004. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 26(3):313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barlow A. (2003). Sharing Homes: A Law Commission Discussion Paper with A Difference. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 25(1):83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett, M. & McIntosh, M., The Anti-Social Family (2nd ed.) (London, Verso, 1991 (1982))Google Scholar
  8. Boyd S.B. (1999). Family, Law and Sexuality: Feminist Engagements. Social and Legal Studies 8(3):369–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyd S.B., Young C.F.L. (2003). ‘From Same-Sex to No Sex’?: Trends Towards Recognition of (Same-Sex) Relationships in Canada. Seattle Journal for Social Justice 1(3):757–793Google Scholar
  10. Brook H. (2001). How to Do Things with Sex. In: Stychin C., Herman D. (eds), Law and Sexuality: The Global Arena. Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 132–150Google Scholar
  11. Bunch, C., “Lesbians in Revolt: Male Supremacy Quakes and Quivers” 1 (Jan. 1972) The Furies: Lesbian/Feminist Monthly, 8–9, (http://www.scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/furies/) (accessed 6 May 2005)
  12. Calhoun C. (2000). Feminism, the Family, and the Politics of the Closet: Lesbian and Gay Displacement. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Cossman B., Ryder B. (2001). What is Marriage-Like Like? The Irrelevance of Conjugality. Canadian Journal of Family Law 18:269–326Google Scholar
  14. Donovan C., Heaphy B., Weeks J. (1999). Citizenship and Same Sex Relationships. Journal of Social Policy 28(4):689–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duncker P. (1993). Heterosexuality: Fictional Agendas. In: Wilkinson S., Kitzinger C. (eds), Heterosexuality: A Feminism and Psychology Reader. London, Sage, pp. 137–149Google Scholar
  16. Dunne G.A. (1997). Lesbian Lifestyles: Women’s Work and the Politics of Sexuality. Hampshire, MacMillanGoogle Scholar
  17. Ettelbrick P. (1996). Wedlock Alert: A Comment on Lesbian and Gay Family Recognition. Journal of Law and Policy 5:107–166Google Scholar
  18. Fineman M.A. (1994). The Neutered Mother, The Sexual Family and other Twentieth Century Tragedies. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Fineman, M.A. (2004). The Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency. New York, The New PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Geller J. (2001). Here Comes the Bride: Women, Weddings, and the Marriage Mystique. New York and London, Four Walls Eight WindowsGoogle Scholar
  21. Glennon L. (2005). Displacing the ‘Conjugal Family’ in Legal Policy – A Progressive Move?. Child and Family Law Quarterly 17(2):141–163Google Scholar
  22. Goodrich P. (2005). Friends in High Places: Amity and Agreement in Alsatia. International Journal of Law in Context 1(1):41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graham M. (2004). Gay Marriage: Whither Sex? Some Thoughts from Europe. Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1(3):24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray N., Brazil D. (2005). Blackstone’s Guide to The Civil Partnership Act 2004. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Harper M., Downs M., Landells K., Wilson G. (2005). Civil Partnership: The New Law. Bristol, Family LawGoogle Scholar
  26. Herman D. (1994). Rights of Passage: Struggles for Lesbian and Gay Equality. Toronto, University of Toronto PressGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunter N. (1995). Marriage, Law and Gender: A Feminist Inquiry. In: Duggan L., Hunter N. (eds), Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture. New York, Routledge, pp. 107–122Google Scholar
  28. Jeffreys S. (1985). The Spinster and her Enemies. Melbourne, Spinifex PressGoogle Scholar
  29. LaViolette N. (2002). Waiting in a New Line at City Hall: Registered Partnerships as an Option for Relationship Recognition Reform in Canada. Canadian Journal of Family Law 19:115–172Google Scholar
  30. Law Commission, “Cohabitation”, www.lawcomm.gov.uk/192.htm (accessed 2 November 2005)Google Scholar
  31. Law Commission, Sharing Homes: A Discussion Paper (Law Com no. 278) (2002)Google Scholar
  32. Law Commission of Canada, Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships (2001), www.lcc.gc.ca (accessed 12 November 2005)Google Scholar
  33. Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group (1981). Love Your Enemy: The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism. London, Onlywomen PressGoogle Scholar
  34. McCartney, J., “We all want to live together, regardless of sex”, Sunday Telegraph (London) 4 April 2004Google Scholar
  35. Miles J. (2003). Property Law vs Family Law: Resolving the Problems of Family Property. Legal Studies 23(4):624–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newsline (ed.) “Cohabitation Reform”, Family Law May (2005) 344–345Google Scholar
  37. Rice, X., “Hope for same-sex couples”, The Times (London) June 14, 2003Google Scholar
  38. Rich A. (1980). Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. London, Onlywomen PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Robson R. (1992). Lesbian (Out)Law: Survival Under the Rule of Law. Ithaca, New York, Firebrand BooksGoogle Scholar
  40. Rotherham, C., “The Property Rights of Unmarried Cohabitees: The Case for Reform”, Conveyancer and Property Lawyer Jul/Aug (2004), 268–292Google Scholar
  41. Smart C. (1989). Feminism and the Power of Law. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Stonewall (2004a) “Civil Partnership Bill: Parliamentary Briefing” House of Lords Report Stage, http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/Lords_Report_June_04.doc (accessed 23 November, 2005)Google Scholar
  43. Stonewall (2004b) “Civil Partnership Bill: Parliamentary Briefing” House of Commons Second Reading, http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/oahq_Commons_Second _Reading_Sep_2004.doc (accessed 23 November, 2005)Google Scholar
  44. Stychin C. (2003). Governing Sexuality: The Changing Politics of Citizenship and Law Reform. Oxford, HartGoogle Scholar
  45. Stychin, C., From Identity to Relationships? The Contested Politics of Same-Sex Relationship Recognition. Paper presented at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, 17 May 2004Google Scholar
  46. Warner M. (1999). The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics and the Ethics of Queer Life. Massachusetts, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  47. Weeks J., Heaphy B., Donovan C. (2001). Same-Sex Intimacies, Families of Choice and other Life Experiments. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Women and Equality Unit, “Civil Partnership: A Framework for the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Couples” (2003), http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/civ_par_con.pdf (accessed August 2005)Google Scholar
  49. Women and Equality Unit, “Civil Partnership Act 2004 – Frequently Asked Questions” (2005), http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/lgbt/faq.htm (accessed August 2005)
  50. Wong S. (2003). Trusting in Trust(s): The Family Home and Human Rights. Feminist Legal Studies 11(2):119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawKeele UniversityKeeleUK

Personalised recommendations