# OMG, civil partnerships only for same-sex couples??



## Badly Drawn Girl (May 21, 2008)

Someone please stop me from having a panic attack. I just read this on the UK Border Agency Visa Services Home Page website: "Under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, civil partnerships can only be entered into by same-sex couples."

Does this mean that my partner and I (who are opposite-sex) will not be recognized as legal partners in the UK?? My entire visa application is based on this!


----------



## Badly Drawn Girl (May 21, 2008)

This is actually really scary, because the ACTUAL law states that "The legal position in the UK is governed by the Civil Partnerships Act 2004... Same-sex couples may do so by registering as civil partners of each other provided that: (i) *they are of the same-sex*." And also: "The Civil Partnership Scheme was not extended to heterosexual couples as the UK Government was of the opinion that legal recognition of heterosexual couples relationships could be obtained through marriage."

However, there is a lot of proof that they should accept heterosexual couples in civil partnerships:

"Same sex *and hetrosexual couples* can register as a 'domestic partnership' in California and New Jersey, which fits the criteria under the Civil Partnership Act 2004."

"The second way of forming a civil partnership is by the couple registering an 'overseas relationship.' A civil partnership is treated as having been formed when the overseas relationship is registered as having been entered into, under the laws of the country or territory in which it is registered. For example, if a same-sex couple marry under the laws of Canada, once that marriage is registered in Canada, the couple are treated as having entered into a civil partnership for the purposes of UK law." _(So therefore since civil partnerships are recognized between heterosexual couples in New Zealand, the UK should recognize those laws.)_

Even if we did not qualify for a "civil partnership" per se under the current legislation, it stands to reason that we should be accepted on the grounds of being "unmarried partners or common-law spouses." Correct?

Given this new discovery however, do you think it would be wise to reapply as a common-law spouse? Although it may even be too late for me since I have already submitted my application online and paid the thousand-dollar fee.


----------



## jlms (May 15, 2008)

I know it is none of my business, but you would be in a better, clearer position by simply getting married....


----------



## richarddeary (Jul 4, 2008)

Mmmmhhh, some people not keen on that option, me thinks.


----------



## Badly Drawn Girl (May 21, 2008)

jlms said:


> I know it is none of my business, but you would be in a better, clearer position by simply getting married....


New Zealand offers civil partnerships for both same- and opposite-sex couples and we were within our every right to choose that option. We ARE planning on getting "married-married," FYI, but chose to hold off due to the fact that we were halfway across the world, would not have been able to have our families or our friends present for the wedding, and we simply didn't have the time or money to arrange it. I find it really offensive when people assume that we are somehow less than a legitimate couple because we didn't have the whole white-dress-and-tux shebang. Sorry, but we are not interested in having a shotgun wedding simply for visa purposes.

My surprise at finding the statement in my original post was more due to the fact that I had no idea the UK had originally wrote the legislation to only include same-sex partners. Obviously their logic was the same as yours; that opposite-sex couples "really should just get married."

Oh, and this point: "Same sex and hetrosexual couples can register as a 'domestic partnership' in California and New Jersey, which fits the criteria under the Civil Partnership Act 2004." This pretty much confirms (to me) the fact that we are indeed in a completely legitimate position, since the UK is required to accept heterosexual civil partnerships if they were certified in a country where such things are legal. The only thing we wouldn't have been able to do would be to register a civil partnership _in the UK_.

GOD it really burns me when people say "You should really go get married, then you'll REALLY be in a legitimate relationship." You DO realize that the UK even offers settlement visas to couples who _do not even intend, EVER, on getting married_, right?


----------



## attuk (Jul 3, 2008)

Bit confused here .... are you applying for de facto visa (dependent). Is your partner British or a permanent resident in the UK ?


----------



## jlms (May 15, 2008)

I am not questioning the legitimacy of your commitment, neither am I denying that people in your situation can settle in the UK.

What I am saying is that it is immensely easier to go through the bureaucratic hurdles if you are married. That is a statement of fact, not a moral judgement.


----------



## Badly Drawn Girl (May 21, 2008)

attuk said:


> Bit confused here .... are you applying for de facto visa (dependent). Is your partner British or a permanent resident in the UK ?


I am applying for a settlement visa based on civil partnership to a British citizen.

And in regards to it being easier for married couples, the actual application I filled out is identical to the one I would have filled out if I were married. I simply ticked a different box when they asked me if I was married or in a civil partnership. (All the questions regarding our relationship used the term "married partner/civil partner" so obviously they are interchangable for the purposes of this visa.)


----------



## peppera-ann- (Feb 4, 2008)

from what i researched it is for same sex, because i have been pulling my hair out trying to find a visa for me. i thought i had it(the same you are talking about) but then it does say the same sex thing...i think perhaps you should call your local consulat. ($3.00 a minute) but it will be worth it to get it clarified. 

goodluck and let me know. im in the same boat(almost anyway)


----------



## oddball (Aug 1, 2007)

*civil partnerships*



jlms said:


> I am not questioning the legitimacy of your commitment, neither am I denying that people in your situation can settle in the UK.
> 
> What I am saying is that it is immensely easier to go through the bureaucratic hurdles if you are married. That is a statement of fact, not a moral judgement.


 Do they give gays this 'Right' because they feel sorry for them or what? How hard does any government need to be against more 'Normal' humans ? To twist arms to make you conform to thier way of thinking is way out of line in my honest opinion . Please do not jump on your high horse because i have most likely heard it all before , these people are not asking for an easy way out by doing something they have not CHOSEN to do for thier own PERSONAL reasons , just as gays have thier own PERSONAL reasons . Proof of living together for a year is usualy enough to prove commitment and so it should be .


----------



## Badly Drawn Girl (May 21, 2008)

peppera-ann- said:


> from what i researched it is for same sex, because i have been pulling my hair out trying to find a visa for me. i thought i had it(the same you are talking about) but then it does say the same sex thing...i think perhaps you should call your local consulat. ($3.00 a minute) but it will be worth it to get it clarified.
> 
> goodluck and let me know. im in the same boat(almost anyway)


Well, I will try to be in touch to clarify (although since I am overseas at the moment, the phone call costs a whopping $12 a minute!) but to me, it seems unwise to panic prematurely because the law _seems_ to state that as long as the civil partnership was entered into legally and in keeping with the local laws of the country/state it was registered in, the UK government will recognize it. Hence why they recognize heterosexual "domestic partnerships" from the States. Civil partnerships _which are registered in the UK_ are only for same-sex couples.

But again, I will try to seek clarification and get back to you on my findings.


----------



## izzysmum04 (Nov 26, 2007)

*I have did some research on this for you. It seems you will need to apply for an unmarried partners visa. The form you need to fill in is SETTLEMENT FORM (VAF4 OCT 2007). Section 6:1 is where you declare you are applying as an unmarried partner. These are the guidance notes to filling it out. Good luck!!*


----------



## jlms (May 15, 2008)

*I have no high horse.....*



oddball said:


> Do they give gays this 'Right' because they feel sorry for them or what? How hard does any government need to be against more 'Normal' humans ? To twist arms to make you conform to thier way of thinking is way out of line in my honest opinion . Please do not jump on your high horse because i have most likely heard it all before , these people are not asking for an easy way out by doing something they have not CHOSEN to do for thier own PERSONAL reasons , just as gays have thier own PERSONAL reasons . Proof of living together for a year is usualy enough to prove commitment and so it should be .


... but please don't fall from yours, it may be quite dangerous.

As I sated in a previous posting, I know all about what you are saying, I know it is perfectly legitimate to try to settle without being married, and I agree with you that the spirit of the law should be respected. Get it? 

So stop it right there and send your victimhood high horse to the stable, you are barking at the wrong tree and you angry yourself only because many people like the role of victims.

I have seen how same sex partners trying to settle in the UK struggle, and most relevant to this case, how heterosexual couples have more trouble to be allowed to settle that if they were married.

In the case of married couples a marriage certificate is enough on lieu of a myriad of documents that non married couples have to present. You may not like it, I don't think it is fair, but that is how things works.

The system is skewed in favour of married couples, non married couples's motives are questioned to higher degree and their cases are seen with more scepticism. Very often married couples receive settlement with nothing but a passing glance at their documentation, couples in partnerships are rarely that lucky.

This is the truth and you implicitly acknowledge it, so my comment is intended as an explanation of how the world works, not about how I would like it to work.


----------



## Badly Drawn Girl (May 21, 2008)

izzysmum04 said:


> *I have did some research on this for you. It seems you will need to apply for an unmarried partners visa. The form you need to fill in is SETTLEMENT FORM (VAF4 OCT 2007). Section 6:1 is where you declare you are applying as an unmarried partner. These are the guidance notes to filling it out. Good luck!!*


Again, it's a bit late now as I have already submitted my civil partner application online and paid the thousand dollar fee. I have been unable to get in touch with the visa services office (time differences) but will try again today. However, I do not see how, if heterosexual "domestic partners" from the United States can be accepted as civil partners in the UK, my partner and I who were _legally_ registered as civil partners in New Zealand, would not qualify in the same way.

ETA: And really, just think about it. New Zealand is a Commonwealth country. Why on earth would we pay the money for a celebrant, pay the government fee to be registered, wait in line for the certificate and go through the whole song and dance if, at the end of the day, I would have to apply for an _unmarried partner_ visa to get into the UK? Does that mean that a homosexual couple in a civil partnership is somehow in a "more valid" relationship than us?? So if a homosexual couple applies for civil partnership they are "married" but if a heterosexual couple applies for civil partnership they are "unmarried." Huh? I mean, this is a bit ridiculous.

My understanding was, if the partnership is registered in a Commonwealth country, then the Commonwealth is obliged to accept it.


----------



## Badly Drawn Girl (May 21, 2008)

jlms said:


> The system is skewed in favour of married couples, non married couples's motives are questioned to higher degree and their cases are seen with more scepticism. Very often married couples receive settlement with nothing but a passing glance at their documentation, couples in partnerships are rarely that lucky.


_Unmarried partners_ receive this type of scrutiny because normally they have no "official" document stating that they are in a bona fide relationship, and so they must provide circumstantial evidence, i.e. proof of cohabitation, proof of joint bank accounts, etc. However, my partner and I have a government certificate stating unequivocally that we are in a clear, proven and dedicated relationship. Civil partners and married couples fill out the same application, so therefore the UK sees the two classes as virtually identical. I simply do not see why a heterosexual civil partnership should have a greater burden of proof than a homosexual one.

The point is, I'm being told (at least from the posters here) that our relationship basically equates to an unmarried partnership. However, if we were gay, we would be "as good as married." Do you see how this does not make sense?


----------



## Badly Drawn Girl (May 21, 2008)

Just to update, I have spoken to the British High Commission in Wellington and they have told me we are perfectly fine to apply as civil partners, as the UK recognizes New Zealand's right as a Commonwealth country to register civil partnerships in the way their national law dictates.


----------



## izzysmum04 (Nov 26, 2007)

*That's good news!*


----------



## Pasanada (Feb 5, 2008)

Just been reading this thread and found it very interesting from a foreigners perspective (I'm British).

The UK Govt seem intent on destroying the institution of marriage; many Brits complain that there are no longer any incentives for us to marry since the abolishment of the Married Person's Tax Allowance. All we see are single mothers and same sex partnerships being encouraged. 

I really don't believe foreigners who are unmarried and wishing to come to the UK will encounter many problems from the authorities, to be gay, a single mum with a dozen kids by different fathers etc or an unmarried hetrosexual couple is fashionable.

Disclaimer: I'm not anti gay nor do I believe in telling people to marry before they're ready, just stating the opinion of many Brits.

Good luck to everyone who wants to live and work in Blighty!


----------



## Badly Drawn Girl (May 21, 2008)

Just wanted to update this thread, as I am currently in the United States awaiting approval of my application. I received a call yesterday from the New York consulate telling me that I should get in touch with them urgently, and was able to actually speak to the woman who is processing my case. Apparently they are having to confirm whether or not our civil partnership is a valid basis for a settlement visa because we are, in fact, heterosexual.

I explained to the woman that I had already been given confirmation by the British consulate in New Zealand that I would definitely be fine because the Commonwealth should accept the national laws of New Zealand, which allow for opposite-sex civil unions. She basically told me that it "didn't matter what other people said" and that she was getting in touch with both the British consulate in New Zealand and the New Zealand consulate in New York for approval.

I would be pretty bowled over if, after being given the go-ahead by one consulate, was later told otherwise by another consulate. Especially considering I have invested over $1,000 on the consulate's word.

This is pretty outrageous, no?


----------



## Bevdeforges (Nov 16, 2007)

Badly Drawn Girl said:


> Just wanted to update this thread, as I am currently in the United States awaiting approval of my application. I received a call yesterday from the New York consulate telling me that I should get in touch with them urgently, and was able to actually speak to the woman who is processing my case. Apparently they are having to confirm whether or not our civil partnership is a valid basis for a settlement visa because we are, in fact, heterosexual.
> 
> I explained to the woman that I had already been given confirmation by the British consulate in New Zealand that I would definitely be fine because the Commonwealth should accept the national laws of New Zealand, which allow for opposite-sex civil unions. She basically told me that it "didn't matter what other people said" and that she was getting in touch with both the British consulate in New Zealand and the New Zealand consulate in New York for approval.
> 
> ...


Chances are things will get sorted in your favor - but unfortunately this is pretty much par for the course. The people who work in the consulates report to one ministry, whereas the immigration people you'll deal with on arrival report to a different one. In most governments, no one talks to anyone in a different area, so what you're dealing with is a series of individual interpretations of what each consular employee THINKS is the policy of the immigration authority.

No consular employee wants to be fingered as "the one" who gave you the wrong advice should you get to Britain and then get turned away or tossed out by the immigration people. (Not that it would cost anyone their job or anything, but it's embarrassing. ) It's their way of not acknowledging that they don't actually have the authority to make the decision.

(In case you haven't guessed, I went through much the same hassle, only over a different issue with the French.)
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## Badly Drawn Girl (May 21, 2008)

Good news, we learned this morning that my application has been approved (which of course it should have been! lol) and that I can drop by the consulate today and pick up my passport. So relieved!


----------

