Afternoon:
9°c
Straight couple to sue after being denied 'gay wedding'
Bo Wilson24 Nov 2009
A heterosexual London couple who were today refused a civil partnership said they will launch a legal challenge to the ruling.
Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, both 25, said they had been discriminated against because of their sexuality after being told civil partnerships were only available for gay couples.
They were given an official letter of refusal at Islington town hall today.
Mr Freeman, a civil servant, said: "We are here to challenge the ban which is part of the system of segregation that ends up discriminating against gay and straight couples.
"Plenty of straight couples don't want to get married and marriage rates are going down.
"In a democratic society, all institutions should be open to all people regardless of their sexuality.
"We're planning to take legal advice and we're willing to take this as far as the European Court of Human Rights." He added that two lawyers had been in touch to support their case and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell also backed the challenge.
Mr Tatchell said: "It's a clear act of discrimination. Just as it's wrong to discriminate against gay people, it's wrong to discriminate against heterosexual people.
"I'm hopeful we can find a way to challenge it."
Ms Doyle, also a civil servant, said the couple, who met at university, did not want to get married because they did not agree with separate ceremonies for gay and straight couples.
She said: "It's very important to us and we want to push it forward.
"We don't agree with marriage and therefore the only way we can, with any conscience, formalise our relationship is with a civil partnership. We have been refused access to a legal institution on the grounds of our sexuality. We are disappointed and saddened by this."
An Islington council spokesman said: "The law dictates that a civil partnership is only for couples of the same sex. The council must follow the law and so we have not been able to accept Mr Freeman and Ms Doyle's application for a civil partnership."
Reader views (58)
They wouldn't be wasting tax payers money if the civil union had just been granted to them. If they are not challenged, and Hetero couples, to be fair, can be granted the same legal status - then it should fly through the court system and not cost much of anything. If however, the anti-gay marriage folks want to throw a snit that there 'should be a difference between gay and straight relationships' and start to drag the process of change...well, then who is wasting the money?
I applaud their end goal, but wish it could have been done without the legal road blocks and standing on ceremony (pun unintended).
- Kristine, Los Angeles, CA, 31/12/2009 18:51
Report abuse
Very proud of this couple and I have thought for a very long time that this separate but equal system is unfair. I wish them all the success with their campaign and feel very good that they are fighting for my right to marry, as well as their right to get a civil partnership. I think the people leaving negative comments on here are failing to see the bigger picture in this issue, which is that making a distinction in law allows people to make a disctinction between straight and gay people that doesn't exist. We are all the same and I hope that soon people realise that.
All the luck in the world to both of you!
- Samantha Parkes, Manchester, 14/12/2009 02:08
Report abuse
what do you actually know about homophobia? really ?
If you dont believe in marriage then why do you want a civil partnership because a CP to a gay couple IS a marriage.
If you just want to sort things out legally make a will. There is always going to be some prejudice in society on all sides for all sorts of things thats life! - i dont get vegatarians but id still make an effort if i had one to dinner.
Its funny gay people have shouted for years 'we want to get married' and finally after ages we get the CP,one straight couple stamps their feet and make this pathetic protest/challenge and suddenly everyones listening!!!
- Lynsey, london, 27/11/2009 12:18
Report abuse
I had a civil partnership, to me its my marriage i didnt do it for legal/financial reasons i did it because i love my partner, if you make civil partnerships the equivalent of 'common law' then you are trivalising my commitment.In no way do i feel discriminated against because i could get married in a church - i had a castle instead!
- Julie, notts, 27/11/2009 11:39
Report abuse
Just how many of you are actually gay thats replying? I personally dont want us all to be under this happy clappy umberella of lets just have one ceremony for us all and yes i am gay and perfectly happy with a civil partnership i dont particularly want the same ceremony with religous conotations as a heterosexual couple i.e church wedding.There will never be just one united ceremony for all the catholic church would never allow it .I really dont understand why you think its your battle ,poor you to feel discriminated against i think its time to put down your tambourine and accept there are differences in the world and perhaps the people whom it truely effects are actually quite happy to be different and are quite used to fighting their own battles thank you very much!
- Catherine, Lincs, 26/11/2009 23:38
Report abuse
'Civil Partnership should be open any adult'.......well marriage aint honey!
OMG HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD! For years weve had to put up with NO official way of sealing our relationships NO form of equal rights we finaly get something -ie'Civil Partnership'ok its not great but it does slightly balance things out and now you heterosexuals wana piece of that too! GIVE ME A BREAK-its scandalous!
Just have a long engagement or beter still a 'reading' by a right on clergy down your local and exchange Argos rings! But DONT,DONT muscle in on something some of us have been fighting for ,for years!
- Hilary ,York, Yorkshire, 26/11/2009 18:54
Report abuse
Go for it Tom & Katherine - you are so right - as Sarahn says above. Everyone should be entitled to choose to marry or form a civil partnership, gay or straight. I'm in a 20 year relationship, we don't want to marry but we do want to protect each others interests legally, yet, we're not offered any way of doing this by an outmoded system that still believe church is best.
- Ali, London, 25/11/2009 20:19
Report abuse
Who are they suing? If it is the Government and they win, the Government will claim it on expenses and pay up Joe Public's money. If they lose I expect Joe Public will pick up the legal costs and fat cat lawyers will be happy. Only poor old Joe Public dips out because he always picks up the bill for the Governments stupidity and the idiotic public's greed.
- Colin Macpherson, Gramat France, 25/11/2009 15:02
Report abuse
Civil partnerships were created because us in the gay community were discriminated against for not being allowed to get married. You can get married at the registry office, I can't!
What a bunch of cretins.
- Tim, London
tim you made me laugh as i was thinking the same thing as i read the article. it seems they don't want to be 'married' but want some kind of ceremony which they can have in the town hall but its a marriage as opposed to a civil partnership .
- Kh, London UK, 25/11/2009 13:01
Report abuse
Quote: "This is clearly a case of discrimination.
i have thought this from the beginning. All too often perfectly lawful, white christian working people are being marginalised whilst every other sexual, religious and ethnic 'minority' is given laws to allow them practical carte blanche."
- John, london, uk
What the hell are you talking about John? Only a complete numpty could believe that civil partnerships for gay people are a 'special privilege'. The law was made because gay people couldn't get married. Straight people have always enjoyed that option. And why on earth do you think that gays aren't also 'perfectly lawful, working people' too? In this case, it is heterosexuals who are demanding 'carte blanche' when they already have all the rights and protections they need. What a ridiculous charade and a waste of time.
- Robert C, London UK, 25/11/2009 10:42
Report abuse
They are only being as stubborn and foolish as the Government. All of you criticising them for wasting taxpayers money and the court's time "because marriages are the same as civil partnerships" - well surely this issue can be cleared up easily and quickly by the Government changing the name of "Civil Partnerships" to marriage, or letting heterosexual people have a Civil Partnership. If there is no difference then why is the Government being so stubborn pretending they are different and therefore not letting them have one? Perhaps the Government could just rename Civil Partnerships "Marriage" and be done with it.
- Paul, Hackney, 25/11/2009 10:23
Report abuse
Actually, once you think this through, this particular state would be ideal for Catholic couples who once married cannot divorce, in theory.
This particular arrangement might just be a way around the Papal edict issue where couples want to formalise living together without marrage.
Could be the very means to avoid Catholic dogma.
- Jimmy, City of London, 25/11/2009 09:03
Report abuse
My understanding of this is the couples desire for a "civil partnership" without any reference to religion and a legal certificate that is not called a marriage certificate. What's so difficult with that?
- Gilbert Tuplin, Canterbury, 25/11/2009 08:19
Report abuse
I have to agree with the majority of the comments, this seems like nothing more than attention-seeking rubbish.
- Jacob, Michigan, 25/11/2009 06:46
Report abuse
Where do I begin? We are not 'losers', and we understand the law and the language it is written in very well indeed thank you. We have been thinking and talking about this issue for very many months.
We want no institution to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their sexuality. That is segregation, and segregation reinforces the kind of prejudices about difference that are at the base of homophobia in our society.
They are (nearly) identical in effect. It all comes down to labels. Which are incredibly important when it comes to irrational prejudice. Saying that CPs and civil marriage are the same so everything is ok completely misses this crucial fact.
In our society, we have two (almost) identical legal institutions that are nonetheless separate. What does the fact that they are kept separate say? The difference, in terms of who is eligible, between CPs and civil marriage, represents a line that can be drawn between people of different sexualities. It encourages prejudice - we are simply making it easier for people to hang on to division between gays and straights in their attitudes, by, effectively, legitimising their prejudice.
Now imagine a society where every couple has equal access to all institutions. That label, that prejudiced people used to be able to hang on to, is gone. Suddenly it is much harder to point out difference. Of course that doesn't stop prejudice overnight. But I think you'd find that it will help attitudes to change over time.
- Tom Freeman, Islington, UK, 25/11/2009 02:22
Report abuse
Here is a heterosexual couple that only wants the same rights and priviledges as homosexual couples. You know "Marriage Without Matrimony" or some such silliness. Next thing they will have four kids but will insist thay they are not "Mom and Dad". Together the six of them will co-habitate without calling it "Family".
- Russ In Nc, Franklin NC USA, 24/11/2009 23:51
Report abuse
They have a perfect argument and I wish them success. To provide a legal facility that is open ONLY to homosexuals is patently wrong.
I respect this couple for standing up for their rights. To those nasty readers saying things such as "numpties", "get a life", well, I wonder why they read the article and bothered to respond? They need to look at themselves and reflect!
- Sandy Logan, Scotland, 24/11/2009 23:46
Report abuse
Well I wanted a Po-tay-to, and the restaurant said they only offer po-tah-toes... I'm suing.
Don't even get me started on the tomato incident... lets call the whole thing off.
- Gekkobear, Colorado Springs, US, 24/11/2009 23:30
Report abuse
There are some very stupid people on here. They are bringing this claim as a way to equalise rights for other people - not themselves. By bringing this claim they hope to get true equality for gay people.
You might think that is for losers but I think it's rather noble.
- Rose, London, 24/11/2009 22:10
Report abuse
I read about Tom's and Katherine's action in the Dutch news and I think they deserve a very big applause! I'm happy that Tom and Katherine stand for equality for couples. Regardless whether you're straight or gay. I think that every country needs these kind of individuals to eventually make a change. Fortunately, the Netherlands has already made this change and I'm glad that we can already marry here. Once again... applause!
- A Bijl, Zwolle, Netherlands, 24/11/2009 21:38
Report abuse
Get a life. This is trivia.
- Dave Davies, Basingstoke, Hants, 24/11/2009 21:05
Report abuse
Civil partnerships were created because us in the gay community were discriminated against for not being allowed to get married. You can get married at the registry office, I can't!
What a bunch of cretins.
- Tim, London, 24/11/2009 20:45
Report abuse
They may seem stubborn fools and perhaps should've considered marriage, but I can't help feeling Islington shouldn't have refused them the partnership if there is nothing legal to prevent it. The spirit of this arrangement is to remove discrimination and feel that authorities should show that the partnership is a commitment between two people regardless of age, race or gender
- Andy, New York, USA, 24/11/2009 20:42
Report abuse
Sorry, but they are right. The law is the problem. This is clearly a case of discrimination.
i have thought this from the beginning. All too often perfectly lawful, white christian working people are being marginalised whilst every other sexual, religious and ethnic 'minority' is given laws to allow them practical carte blanche.
- John, london, uk, 24/11/2009 19:44
Report abuse
in france anyone can enter into a civil partnership,although it was orginally for gay couples,90% of partnerships are heterosexual these days...It has largely replaced marriage in France,in fact my partner and I entered into one this year.
- Ken, paris,france, 24/11/2009 19:15
Report abuse
"Yes, they are out to prove a point. And good for them. How many people will truly stand up for things they believe in these days? - Karen, London"
...yes, but who is paying for all this? THEY are making a stand for THEIR beliefs (questionable or not), sure, but it is EVERYONE'S taxes that are being used to pay for their bee in the bonnet 'rights issue'.
- Rogan, Irving, 24/11/2009 19:00
Report abuse
Fine, if they are using their own money to promote their principles. But taxpayers' money should not be used. We are already paying enough to fund their wages and pensions.
- Howardinmk, Milton Keynes,, 24/11/2009 18:52
Report abuse
The words "life" "get" and "a" spring to mind. There are far more serious matters, including discrimination, to be concerned about in this world.
No doubt the lawyers are rubbing their hands, and I wouldn't mind a small wager on Joe Public picking up the tab.
What a joke this country has become.
- John C, Leatherhead, UK, 24/11/2009 18:45
Report abuse
Ah Islington Council thats the one that sacked a registrar because she would not perform civil partnerships on grounds of her religion.
As to the comment re Registry Offices they are Marraiges not Civil Partnerships!!
So when will we get a civil partnership request for more than 2 people at the same service turned down?
- Melvyn, Canvey Island, Essex, 24/11/2009 18:37
Report abuse
I sincerely hope that they are funding this ridiculous waste of time legal action themselves and will be paying all costs if they lose.
- Michou, essex, 24/11/2009 18:28
Report abuse
Civil marriage and civil partnerships give couples the same legal and fiscal rights and responsibilities. The only difference seems to be that, in contrast to marriage, a civil partnership is not voidable due to non consummation nor is there a monogamy requirement since adultery is not, in itself, a ground for dissolution of a civil partnership whereas it is in the case of marriage. The couple concerned seem to be demanding a a marriage of convenience!
- James, London England, 24/11/2009 18:07
Report abuse
Good for them. Civil partnerships discriminate against gay people while given enough of a veneer to make it look like Labour is all for equality. The law here doesn't recognise a Canadian civil marriage between two men but would if it was between a man and a woman. That's discrimination. And why shouldn't a straight couple choose a civil partnership if they want? Hope they win: the law should either treat everyone equally or not treat them at all.
- Chris O'Leary, Islington N1, 24/11/2009 18:04
Report abuse
Will, a civil partnership has added legal benefits that not getting married does not! And I haven't read much about the civil divorce. I guess the gays and lesbians forgot to campaign for that privilege. Not happy after a few years, just walk away.
- Dwight, Jacksonville USA, 24/11/2009 17:46
Report abuse
How much of taxpayers money will this cost? Being civil servants they wont have considered this as money grows on trees for them.
- Jules_London, london, 24/11/2009 17:32
Report abuse
Mark, Will and Adam, why don't you go read the Sun?
I'm all for this, although I still believe gay couples should be allowed to get married rather than partnered, the separate ceremony is discriminatory.
- Jacqui Smith'S Dvd Collection!, Hackney, London, 24/11/2009 17:18
Report abuse
Good for them! The Civil Partnership is a form of apartheid and was a sop to the churches. Same sex marriages should be freely available to those who want them in a proper Registry civil ceremony. Ignoring the childish comments, it's a shame that those posting negative views on here can't see the wider implications.
- Angiers, Brighton, UK, 24/11/2009 17:00
Report abuse
Two people badly in need of a hobby,I bet they belong to UAF as well,morons.
- Jacob, Lockdown UK, 24/11/2009 16:55
Report abuse
This pair must be a riot at dinner parties. I'd end up scooping my eyes out with the soup spoon just to have something to throw at them.
- Roberto, London, 24/11/2009 16:53
Report abuse
well, why not. This is what New Labour enacted laws have created. Anomolies that will be battened on and exploited by Greedy 'Uming Rites' Laywers. With our wonderfully Incompetented and vindictive Labour government, its a wonder UK Civil Society actually works!
'Its by Good Luck than Good Judgement' words quoted from Tony Blair talking about Gordon Brown's performance as Chancellor. This same statement could be applied generally accross all of New Labour incompetence as our government tries to enact policy changes are creating more and more fault lines accross UK society.
- Uncle Vanya, East Anglia Area uk, 24/11/2009 16:43
Report abuse
All they have to do is go to a Registry Office with two friends and they have a ceremony which is not far removed from a Civil Partnership. These people should try experiencing real discrimination - such as that experienced by many gay couples - before embarking on such a ridiculous campaign. They are trivialising the issues faced by others and should stop wasting everyone's time with such a frivolous case.
- Tj, London, 24/11/2009 16:37
Report abuse
Civil Servants - God bless them!!!!!!!!
What would we do without them...
- Jonny, London, 24/11/2009 15:46
Report abuse
While it can be viewed as a waste of time, and may seem "loserish" to some people, their point stands strong. Couples of whatever sexuality should be allowed to marry or have a civil partnership if they like. Yes, they are out to prove a point. And good for them. How many people will truly stand up for things they believe in these days?
- Karen, London, 24/11/2009 15:40
Report abuse
What a confused idea: gay couples are now granted civil ceremonies because marriage is not available to them. What do these people think a civil partnership is not that marriage is, apart from the capacity to create children?
- Mdj E10, london uk, 24/11/2009 15:35
Report abuse
How sad. Have they nothing better to do?
- Will, London, 24/11/2009 15:31
Report abuse
Will someone tell this man and woman who don't believe in marriage that if they want to 'go and live in sin' get on with it? - no one is interested in this 'contrived' legal argument!
- Lilsta, London, England, 24/11/2009 15:19
Report abuse
It was only a matter of time until someone would try to exploit the discrimination against hetersexuals being banned from a civil union which is normally called a marriage. As noone is being disadvantage this couple should get back in their box and shut up. In the end they are wasting time and money just because they don't understand the English language.
- Alexis Dogilewski, London England, 24/11/2009 15:17
Report abuse
One more thing: "Plenty of straight couples don't want to get married and marriage rates are going down." Don't get married then! What a pair of idiots. Unbelievable.
- Will, London, UK, 24/11/2009 15:02
Report abuse
My lord. What a ridiculous challenge. Would these couple of idiots please stop wasting council time and money.
- Will, London, UK, 24/11/2009 14:59
Report abuse
What a pair of numpties - get a life.
- Adam, London, 24/11/2009 14:58
Report abuse
This seems like rather pointless nit picking to me. 'We don't agree with marriage' yet they want to be recognised as a couple by law - isn't that what marriage AND civil partnership is? Correct me if I'm wrong but if you marry in a registry office you've formed a civil partnership anyway.
- B Lane, London, 24/11/2009 14:55
Report abuse
The courts have better things to do than deal with frivalous and vexatious litigation by a pair of attention-seekers. Get married or don't get married. Who cares?
- Jf, London, 24/11/2009 14:45
Report abuse
Get a life!
- Dave B, Beckenham, 24/11/2009 14:42
Report abuse
Stubborn fools, out to prove a legal point. Just get married in a civil ceremony and be done with it. Clearly they have too much time on their hands.
- Jonathan Charles, London, 24/11/2009 14:40
Report abuse
They really must have too much time on their hands. Let's hope that no public money will be spent assisting them.
- Ranter, Maidstone, UK, 24/11/2009 14:32
Report abuse
Good on them. Hopefully, if the ECHR rules in their favour, then, by implication, this will eventually result in gay couples being allowed to be married. I was very disappointed when we had the opportunity to have genuine equality for couples, rather than simply allowing marriage to be available to all couples, the government felt it better to create a bipartite system, which is fundamentally still discrminatory.
- Ross, London, England, 24/11/2009 14:28
Report abuse
What a couple of losers!
- Mark, London, 24/11/2009 14:23
Report abuse
You are not 'formalising your partnership' though. Marriage is formalising a partnership in a legal and lawful sense, you get half of everything if you divorce, your children are not illegitimate. If you live together you still have no legal rights and your children are illegitimate. There is no such thing as Common Law as many people seem to think there is. Civil partnerships are for same sex couples because the law says they cannot legally marry, end of!
- Sue, Orpington, Kent, 24/11/2009 14:22
Report abuse
I hope they win. Civil partnership should be open to any adult, in any kind of relationship.
- Sarahn, London, UK, 24/11/2009 14:05
Report abuse
