As several colleagues have said, it is important to stress that civil partnerships allow couples to benefit from the legal, financial and social aspects of marriage, while avoiding an institution they do not want to enter for symbolic, cultural or emotional reasons. Civil partnerships can also be a valuable choice for women who have had negative experiences with marriage in the past, including abusive relationships. If we want to be an inclusive and forward-thinking country that stands up for people`s rights, it is right that we ensure that those who want to formalize or celebrate a relationship can do so in a way that aligns with their views and values. The expansion of civil partnerships allows us to stand in solidarity with others around the world who cannot marry. The same problem can occur with joint civilian partnerships. A life partner in a mixed relationship may not be able to obtain dissolution if they reside, as the law of that country does not recognize mixed relationships other than marriage. Accordingly, section 237 of the 2004 Act requires an amendment to allow the regulations to provide for a corresponding amendment to the normal rules in this situation. This will ensure equal treatment between same-sex and mixed partners. The ban on compulsory partnerships for same-sex and opposite-sex couples is also to be welcomed. If you and your partner terminate your civil partnership, long-term ownership of your assets may be decided in parallel with the dissolution procedure. The court has the power to transfer ownership independently of the original property. However, if you do not legally separate, the court will only agree to transfer ownership of a property if it is in the best interests of your children. The Faculty of Lawyers also expressed concern that the decision on civil partnerships does not extend to adultery.
He advised the Committee to seek clarification, as it would be necessary to know what else the Committee was doing on delegated authority and legal reform. I will now explain in more detail what the bill will do. It begins with a small amendment to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 by removing the words „of the same sex” from the definition of relationship in section 1 of the Act. The deletion of these four words, while apparently nominative, will represent a profound and welcome change in the character of civil partnership in Scotland and will expand equality and choice. (b) The partnership application must contain the following information: same-sex couples have the right to choose between civil partnership and marriage and the same choice should also be offered to other couples. This point has been raised by many other speakers. It is important to improve people`s choices about how they structure their lives. If you and your life partner have separate bank accounts and one of you dies, the bank may allow the other to withdraw the money remaining in the account. The remaining amount should be small.
The bank would likely require proof of your relationship and also proof that your partner has died. Before the law comes into full force, various parts of secondary legislation must be introduced that cover things like changing the forms used by NFSs and registrars. Training of NFS employees and registrars is also required, as well as modification of NFS IT systems. For example, the NFS maintains statistics on a number of same-sex and mixed marriages. It wants to keep statistics on a number of civil partnerships between same-sex and mixed persons, which requires an adjustment of the computer system. If property is given to you by your partner, you may have to pay inheritance tax if it is valued at a certain amount. In the event of the death of a life partner, the transfer of ownership is exempt from inheritance tax. However, you are not exempt if you and your partner have lived together without living in a civil partnership. (f) all persons who enter into same-sex marriages solemnly concluded in that State or resulting from the conversion of a civil union in force under that State accept the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the family court of that State in all proceedings for divorce and annulment of that marriage, even if 1 or both parties no longer reside in that State; as is apparent from Article 1504 of that title.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary to the Cabinet – thank you for joining us today. In Phase 1, we heard testimony about the importance of the bill in terms of people`s views on marriage. The term „marriage” comes with a lot of baggage, and it can be quite an emotional topic for some people. For this reason, there is concern about the interim measures that would apply before the full entry into force of the Act. Civil partnerships of different sexes registered outside Scotland are considered marriages if the persons of these partnerships visit Scotland or move to Scotland during the transition period. What could we do about that in the bill? Could we approach it differently? For example, could such partnerships be considered civil partnerships and not marriages until the law comes into force? Annex 20 recognises certain foreign partnerships as equivalent under UK law. Same-sex couples who have entered into these unions are automatically recognised as life partners in the UK. In England and Wales, foreign marriages (but not other types of relationships) are automatically recognised as marriages under the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013; The same is true for Scotland through the Marriage and Civil Partnership Act 2014 (Scotland). Given that we have the institution of civil partnership in Scotland, even though it currently only applies to same-sex couples, what barrier would prevent you from amending section 3(2)(a) to state that people are „treated as having a civil partnership”? I know that the institution of civil partnership for mixed couples does not exist, but we can treat people as if they were in a civil partnership because the institution exists. „By enabling our civil partnership, you are helping us give our children more stability and security for our age.” The purpose of the bill is to expand choice.
The Equality Network testified on this when it talked about the levelling that will occur as a result of the bill. Although marriage and civil partnerships represent a similar legal status, they can have very different meanings for individual couples. Both have their own symbolic values and meaning, so I am pleased that the bill is an extension of the election. The alternative to alignment with the European Convention on Human Rights would have been a restriction of this personal freedom by completely abolishing the possibility of access to civil partnerships. .