British Gay Partners Win Landmark Ruling (1 Viewer)

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
British Gay Partners Win Landmark Ruling
by Peter Moore
365Gay.com Newscenter
London Bureau
Posted: June 23, 2004 2:16 pm ET

(London) In a stunning victory for same-sex couples in Britain the highest judicial body in the country has ruled that gay partners have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

In settling a long-running legal battle, the House of Lords rejected an appeal by a landlord who claimed a gay man could not inherit the tenancy rights of his partner after he died.

Citing the Human Rights Act, four of the five Law Lords ruled that a gay couple had the same legal rights as a married couple.

"Homosexual relationships can have exactly the same qualities of intimacy, stability and inter-dependence that heterosexual relationships do," said Baroness Hale writing for the majority.

Lady Hale said she had no difficulty in applying the term "as husband and wife" to persons of the same sex living together in a stable relationship.

The case centered on a relationship between Antonio Mendoza and Hugh Wallwyn-James, who shared a London apartment for 19 years.

Wallwyn-James died from cancer in 2001 and the landlord served notice on Mendoza that the lease was no longer valid and that he would have to move so the unit could be rented. Mendoza filed suit claiming that he should have the same tenancy rights as a partner of the opposite sex.

Lady Hale, in her ruling, said it was not long ago that it was considered acceptable for a landlady offering rooms to lawfully put a "no blacks" notice in her window. This was now considered wrong because the sex or color of a person was "simply irrelevant".

She said the guarantee of equal treatment was "essential to democracy".

The government has already promised to change the law to give same-sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities of their married counterparts.

The Civil Partnership Bill introduced last year will allow gay and lesbian couples to sign an official document at a register office in front of the registrar and two witnesses. Couples who register will have new legal status as civil partners. (story)

©365Gay.com® 2004
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Yes, a civil union. What's your point? In the gay marriage thread you were bitching about civil unions.
 

Ziff

Active Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
2,366
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
In NSW they would have been treated as de-facto partners and it would have been possible to transfer the lease. Then again, different laws but still.

So because the UK was less progressive previously they end up progressing more now - to civil unions - whilst in Australia homosexuals are still stuck on de-facto.

It's like PAL and NTSC colour systems on TV! The longer you wait the better benefits you get in the end - strange!
 

crazyhomo

under pressure
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,817
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
Originally posted by neo_o
Yes, a civil union. What's your point? In the gay marriage thread you were bitching about civil unions.
only one step away
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Originally posted by neo_o
Yes, a civil union. What's your point? In the gay marriage thread you were bitching about civil unions.
Re-read this part again k?

"Citing the Human Rights Act, four of the five Law Lords ruled that a gay couple had the same legal rights as a married couple.

"Homosexual relationships can have exactly the same qualities of intimacy, stability and inter-dependence that heterosexual relationships do," said Baroness Hale writing for the majority.

Lady Hale said she had no difficulty in applying the term "as husband and wife" to persons of the same sex living together in a stable relationship."

This ruling basically allows that civil partnerships are marriages.. just not called that. This is not what we currently have here. (And as hilarious as it is, its not what the bill when created originally allowed for.. despite the fact it was structured to atleast on the surface look that way)

Take a gander at what it entails. (BTW it was intro'd into legislation in late March.)

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200304/ldbills/053/04053.i-viii.html

Once you read more into it, the Bill itself is quite pathetic... not quite as pathetic as our civil unions bs... but still i mean how crap is this: (From Place of Registration)

"(2) But the place must not be one where persons are known to meet for public worship or one known to be regarded by persons of a religious faith as a place of reverence."

Which is silly... i mean sure not all churches are going to allow it.. but what about ones that do? Do they get a special certificate that allows them to have such an event in their 'place of reverence'?
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top