• Religious liberty
• Publications
  • Advocate magazines
  • Annual reviews
  • Child abuse
  • Drugs
  • Education
  • Gambling & the national lottery
  • Homosexual rights
  • Marriage & the family
  • Medical ethics
  • Religious liberty
  • Scotland
  • Theology
  • Update magazines
• MPs' votes
• Audio archive
• Theology
• Links
  • Christian
  • Pro-life
  • Legislation
  • Media
  • Political

Facts

• During the passage of the Civil Partnership Bill, an amendment was put forward by Edward Leigh MP to extend the Bill to siblings who have lived together for twelve years or more. The amendment was defeated in the House of Commons by 74 votes to 381.
• An earlier amendment, initially passed in the House of Lords, extended the Bill to include close family members as well as siblings. However, when it became clear that such a broad extension would be unlikely to succeed in the House of Commons, the narrower amendment was put forward by Edward Leigh MP. 

Key points

• The Civil Partnership Act is unfair.¹ The scheme only applies to gays and lesbians, whilst other house-sharers are excluded. 
• The major argument advanced by the Government in favour of civil partnerships is that there were ‘hard cases’ which needed to be remedied – individual cases of disadvantage suffered by homosexual couples in comparison to married couples.
• Yet for every ‘hard case’ cited for a homosexual couple, there will be almost 60 times as many cases which apply to people in ordinary families – a daughter living with her elderly mother, a grandson living with his infirm grandfather, a friend who looks after a disabled person on a long-term basis.²
• For example, two elderly sisters live together for twenty years. One dies, and the other can’t afford the inheritance tax and has to sell the home they shared. A gay couple register their partnership. One dies after only a year and the other inherits a large property, tax-free.
• Over 80% of the public believed the Civil Partnership Bill should have been fairer to ordinary families according to an opinion poll.³ Even the Government and supporters of the Bill were forced to admit that civil partnerships created injustice for ordinary family members.
• If the Government was really concerned about injustice it would have helped ordinary families as well. The fact that it was content to ignore them proves the Civil Partnership Act was really about rewarding sexual relationships that are morally wrong.

• ¹It was the 2005 budget which extended the tax benefits of marriage to those who enter a civil partnership.
• ²Based on figures for England and Wales – see House of Commons, Hansard, 31 March 2004, col.1411 wa. The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales was asked how many households in England and Wales contain two or more persons, excluding students, who do not see themselves as a couple, according to the 2001 Census; how many people are in such households; how many people there are in such households where both are pensioners; and how many people in such households are related to each other. He replied “There were 1,763,170 such households in England and Wales containing 4,616,558 residents. Of these 4,616,558 residents, 183,775 were pensioners living in “All Pensioner” households.” According to the 2001 Census, the number of people living in a same-sex couple, was 78,522 people – see House of Commons, Hansard, 24 March 2004, col. 844 wa. This means there are 59 times as many house-sharers as people in homosexual couples (4,616,558/78,522 = 59). NB 1: The figures for how many house-sharers are related to each other (sisters, for example) may be made available. NB 2: According to the alternative Labour Force Survey, in the three-month period ending November 2003 there were 50,887 same-sex couple households in Great Britain. House of Commons, Hansard, 24 March 2004, col. 844 wa
• ³Christian Institute Press Release, ‘Public Strongly supports including siblings in Civil Partnership Bill’, 8 November 2004