# how can hetrosexual unmarried couples benefit from civil partnership?



## landlord (16 Feb 2012)

I just phoned the registration office and was told that hetrosexual couples can not become civil partners in Ireland. So how are hetrosexual couples supposed to benefit (in tax savings) from the new legislation that came in for cohabiting couples?


----------



## theoneill (16 Feb 2012)

If civil partnerships are marriage in all but name why don't you just pop down to the registration office and get married. 

I may be wrong but I think the only reason they call it civil partnership for homosexuals is to placate those that feel their heterosexual marriages are somehow threatened by homosexuals getting married.


----------



## mandelbrot (16 Feb 2012)

Short answer is, they're not! 

The delicious irony of a piece of legislation designed specifically to be anti-discrimination, which discriminates against people on the grounds of gender / sexuality... 

(Now cue the rash of people who'll tell you to just shut up whinging and get married...)


----------



## Padraigb (16 Feb 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> ...
> The delicious irony of a piece of legislation designed specifically to be anti-discrimination, which discriminates against people on the grounds of gender / sexuality... ...


Let's see how this works:
1. Marriage was, and still is, available to heterosexual couples who want to establish a relationship of permanent nature, and confer certain mutual rights;
2. Same-sex couples sought the same possibility;
3. Loud voices were raised in opposition to their being allowed marry;
4. Civil partnership was introduced to allow same-sex couples to marry in all but name;
5. Now some heterosexual people complain that they cannot avail of legislation that was introduced to lessen (but not fully eliminate) the discrimination inherent in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Sorry, but I have to make a naughty pun: some people seem to want it both ways.


----------



## mandelbrot (16 Feb 2012)

Padraigb said:


> Let's see how this works:
> 1. Marriage was, and still is, available to heterosexual couples who want to establish a relationship of permanent nature, and confer certain mutual rights;
> 2. Same-sex couples sought the same possibility;
> 3. Loud voices were raised in opposition to their being allowed marry;
> ...





Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with gay marriage, and if they had brought it in, I wouldn't be making the argument I am.

But the fact is, the state introduced civil partnership, which is legally not the same thing as marriage, and they only made it available to a certain subcategory of people. It is irrelevant that it was intended as you say to lessen the pre-existing discrimination, the simple fact is that instead of eradicating discrimination, they have increased it. Homosexuals still can't get married, and now heterosexuals can't get civil-partnered. They've actually increased the amount of discrimination exponentially (since there are far more heterosexual couples than homosexual)...!


----------



## Macstuff (20 Feb 2012)

Also, there are currently no tax benefits of a civil union. The govt. intend to offer them but have yet to pass the legislation necessary for it to happen. 
Yet another example of the inherent discrimination associated with the Civil Union bill.


----------



## mandelbrot (20 Feb 2012)

Macstuff said:


> Also, there are currently no tax benefits of a civil union. The govt. intend to offer them but have yet to pass the legislation necessary for it to happen.
> Yet another example of the inherent discrimination associated with the Civil Union bill.


 


Yes there are tax benefits, Sections 1031A - 1031O were inserted into TCA 97 by Finance Act 2011, to effectively treat civil partners as married people.


----------



## Macstuff (20 Feb 2012)

Sorry my mistake, I was overstating the case. 
My comment was based on a hazy recollection of a study conducted under the supervision of the faculty of Law in UCD. I have now rechecked it and it indicates that when it comes to taxation issues, there are 12 differences in the way people who engage in a civil partnership are treated when compared to those who undertake a civil marriage. They relate to areas such as mainteance payments (in relation to children), how a relative is defined, what happens in the event of a breakdown etc.
[broken link removed]


----------



## roland (28 Feb 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with gay marriage, and if they had brought it in, I wouldn't be making the argument I am.
> 
> But the fact is, the state introduced civil partnership, which is legally not the same thing as marriage, and they only made it available to a certain subcategory of people. It is irrelevant that it was intended as you say to lessen the pre-existing discrimination, the simple fact is that instead of eradicating discrimination, they have increased it. Homosexuals still can't get married, and now heterosexuals can't get civil-partnered. They've actually increased the amount of discrimination exponentially (since there are far more heterosexual couples than homosexual)...!



I think you are making something which is not difficult into something very difficult.  If a heterosexual couple want to get the tax benefits of being in a couple then they get married.  If a homosexual couple want that, then they get a civil partnership.  The debates over having something different for homosexuals is another thread.  But if a heterosexual couple think they are being discriminated against because they can't have access to marriage and a civil partnership then they probably need a kick up the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Feb 2012)

Why would a heterosexual couple want a civil partnership over a marriage?


----------



## Time (28 Feb 2012)

Maybe they are easier to get out of later on?


----------



## roland (28 Feb 2012)

Time said:


> Maybe they are easier to get out of later on?



Well as the sage John Waters said, marriage is available to all homosexuals provided it is to a member of the opposite sex.  Great advice indeed John, fair play to you, you deserve a prize for that.  I suppose by the same token, civil partnership is indeed available to all heterosexuals provided it is to a member of the same sex, and indeed it seems there has been a case of this to step over inheritance tax restrictions for a bequest between two unmarried friends.


----------



## mandelbrot (29 Feb 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Why would a heterosexual couple want a civil partnership over a marriage?


 
One reason that occurs to me is that if you can have a heterosexual civil partnership, you can just do it nice and quietly, nobody need even know, and if/when they do find out they can't say "I can't believe you got married and didn't give us all a day out..." etc... Because you won't have actually got married, you can therefore sidestep all the "traditions" that older / more devout relatives might expect.

You could also gain the financial (tax credits etc) and legal benefits of civil partnership now, and still opt to get married later on, and do the whole nine yards if that's your cup of tea.

But again I must stress none of that is relevant really - IMHO the question is why should it not be available to heterosexuals if it is available to homosexuals.


----------



## Bonaparte (29 Feb 2012)

Just to be clear, civil partner ship is available to same sex couples, not necessarily homo sexual couples only. I am aware of at least one hetro sexual same sex civil partnership which allowed for the avoidance of gift tax when one partner wanted to pay for the others medical expenses. This would also be beneficial in the area of inherritance. On the issue of civil partner for opposite sex couples I echo the question WHY? I am sure gay people would really love to be able to get married and for the life of me I can't understand why they can't


----------



## roland (29 Feb 2012)

Bonaparte said:


> On the issue of civil partner for opposite sex couples I echo the question WHY? I am sure gay people would really love to be able to get married and for the life of me I can't understand why they can't



Because the sky would fall in.  Because traditional marriage would be destroyed.  Because we'd all become gay.  Because there would be untold effects on impressionable children.  Because we didn't want to rock the boat.  Because all our children would become gay.  Because I might lose some votes in Ballyhaunis.  Because there would be untold effects on impressionable adults.  Because it would be too much for my head to take in.  Because in Ireland we're better safe than sorry.  Because the whole island might become gay.  Because I might offend someone I don't know.  Because marriage is not about love.  Because people might start marrying sheep.  Because I haven't a clue.  Because it's Ireland.


----------



## Time (29 Feb 2012)

> Because it's Ireland.


Says it all really.


----------

