Liverpool Law Review

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Abolishing Marriage: Can Civil Partnership Cover it?

Article

Abstract

This paper argues that all adult intimate relationships should be regulated under one single statute. This statute should be the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (which currently applies to same sex couples). The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (which applies to opposite sex couples), should be repealed; it should not be amended to include same sex couples. There would, as a consequence, be no such thing as (legal) marriage. Marriage as a legal construct is a heterosexual and patriarchal institution and is therefore so fundamentally flawed it is beyond the possibility of successful reform or repair. The present system of having two distinct legal means of relationship recognition is akin to sexual apartheid and is therefore unsustainable in the long term. Having a legal system which recognises only one form of legal partnership would therefore formally end a discriminatory system. Despite its drawbacks, Civil Partnership does not have the same extent of symbolic and practical degree of flaws as Marriage.

Keywords

Civil partnership Marriage Opposite sex Same sex 

References

  1. Auchmuty, R. 2004. Same sex marriage revised: Feminist critique and legal strategy. Feminism and Psychology 14 (1): 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd, S. 2004. The perils of rights discourse: A response to Kitzinger and Wilkinson. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 4 (1): 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christian Institute. 2003. Response of the Christian Institute to Civil Partnership—a framework for the legal recognition of same-sex couples. http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/archive_html/civilpartnerships/ci_response.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2008.
  4. Church of England. 2003. Response to Department of Trade and Industry Consultation Document. http://www.cofe.anglican.org/. Accessed 30 Sept 2003.
  5. Clive, E. 1980. Marriage: An unnecessary legal concept? In Marriage and cohabitation in contemporary societies: Areas of legal, social and economic change, ed. J. Eekelaar and S. Katz. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  6. Department of Trade, Industry (Women and Equality Unit). 2003. Responses to civil partnership: A framework for the legal recognition of same-sex couples. London: The Department of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
  7. Hoggett, B. 1980. Ends and means: The utility of marriage as a legal institution. In Marriage and cohabitation in contemporary societies: Areas of legal, social and economic change, ed. J. Eekelaar and S. Katz. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  8. O’Donovan, K. 1984. Legal marriage—who needs it? Modern Law Review 47 (1): 111–118.Google Scholar
  9. O’Donovan, K. 1985. Sexual divisions in law. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  10. O’Donovan, K. 1993. Family law matters. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  11. Poulter, S. 1979. The definition of marriage in English law. Modern Law Review 42 (4): 409–429.Google Scholar
  12. Wright, W. 2006. The tide in favour of equality: Same-sex marriage in Canada and England and Wales. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 2006 20 (3): 249–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law SchoolUniversity of LancasterLondonUK
  2. 2.Bross Bennett Family Law SolicitorsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations