The virtue of the civil partnerships scheme lay in the attempt to treat the needs of gay and lesbian couples as what they are, not to bundle them into some other category.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
However saying that I totally support the concept of civil partnerships in the eyes of the law, and think it a disgrace that same sex couples have had to wait so long for legal rights, protection and recognition.
The best partnerships aren't dependent on a mere common goal but on a shared path of equality, desire, and no small amount of passion.
There is a difference between civil partnerships and marriage. That difference does not mean one is better than another.
There is so much work to be done to treat gays and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples with the respect that they're entitled to. They deserve, in my judgment, partnership benefits. They deserve to be treated fairly when it comes to adoption and immigration.
Securing for gays and lesbians the basic right to have their relationships and families recognized as part of a community makes all of our communities stronger.
I have no difficulty with the recognition of civil unions for non-traditional relationships but I believe in law we should protect the traditional definition of marriage.
I have not supported same-sex marriage. I have supported civil partnerships and contractual relationships.
I think there are a whole host of things that are civil rights, and then there are other things - such as traditional marriage - that, I think, express a community's concern and regard for a particular institution.
It is absolutely right for the state to define the rights and status of people cohabiting in different forms of relationships, including civil partnerships.
If the rights of civil partners are met differently in law to those of married couples, there is no discrimination in law, and if civil partnerships are seen as somehow 'second class' that is a social attitude which will change and cannot, in any case, be turned around by redefining the law of marriage.