Hmmm. Can anyone say "slippery slope"--its only a matter of time. Civil Partnerships are an unstable middle ground temporarily adopted for the sake of more gradually transitioning to what is (among many) a less palatable final destination. It all comes down to the old recipe for cooking a frog in such a way that it doesn't jump out of the pot--increase the temperature gradually. That way, the final result is brought about without having to spend a lot of effort putting the frog back into the pot. Patience is required, but it is far less work in the end.

Steven

Simon, your tone is incredulous: "anyone who has trouble understanding this should go back....."
But you see many * do * have trouble understanding, that is the point:

The Bishops sit on the fence. They say 'we uphold Christian marriage. We are not changing the position of the church.'
And then they specifically authorise clergy to partake in what is widely perceived (yes in the UK, including to LGCM, but even more abroad) as gay marriage. (The government says it's not gay marriage - cept it grants all the same legal rights as marriage and on the back of the legislation they go on a publicity drive interpreted in the media as promoting gay marriage.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/15/ngay15.xml

The Bishops say one thing and they authorise something else. That is how the man on the street perceives their actions. And to try and prevent an outcry they apply a caveat which is not only ineffective but totally contradicts the intention of the legislation which presupposes that a civil partnership is sexual.

No amount of indignant wounded pleading that a particular line hasn't technically been crossed by the CofE really counts for anything at this juncture. The man on the street and much of the rest of Anglicanism can see the hypocricy and duplicity of the Bishops' current position.

It is also not yet clear whether or not the Anglican Church of Canada is going to either condone or approve homosexual marriage. What's on the table, so to speak, right now, is our reaction as a church to the change in the Marriage Act. This summer, in response to a series of court decisions, Parliament passed, and royal assent was given, to a new Marriage Act, which redefines civil marriage to be between two persons rather than between a man and a woman. The legislation (and the court decisions for that matter) protect the rights of ministers of religion, who are not required to perform marriages contrary to their doctrine and beliefs.

At the moment, the marriage canon remains unchanged and Anglican clergy don't marry same-sex couples. Some people would like to see it changed to allow that. Others would like to see the church authorise liturgies of blessing for same-sex couples who have had civil marriages but don't want to change the marriage canon. Still others want the whole issue to be decided diocese by diocese. And others (probably the majority at the moment) want to do nothing!

Currently we're all still talking to each other, and trying to decide how to decide the issue. In all the rush to Nottingham, the report of the theological commission was largely ignored, even within the Anglican Church of Canada, but I thought it an important one. It found against the argument that this was a pastoral issue that could be dealt with diocese by diocese and for the argument that this was a matter of doctrine with which the whole church would need to deal at General Synod. And that discussion is still to come.

So the primate of South East Asia is getting ahead of matters a bit. I personally doubt that the matter will be settled at the next G.S. (which is why my partner of 32 years and I decided to be married in a civil ceremony this summer -- we're in our 50s now and have both had some health scares in the last few years, so waiting for a church wedding or blessing didn't seem like a good idea).

The C of E is certainly not going to try and stamp out civil partnerships for anyone, which is what the Nigerians want it to do. So in that case it does condone and approve, etc, just as it does divorce.

Yes, The CofE House of Bishops is not opposing Civil Partnerships.

One reason is because they believe, on the basis of expensive legal advice, that in English (and Scots, and Northern Ireland) law a Civil Partnership is not a Marriage. It really is irrelevant what the general public, or the newspapers, or Neil Barber, or Peter Akinola, thinks. The question is what does the law say. (The situation in other jurisdictions, such as Canada or the USA, may be different.)

Another reason is because the law, regardless of what anyone thinks, does not presuppose the sexual orientation of either partner, still less does it presuppose any sexual activity between partners.

What part of what the law doesn't presuppose don't you understand Neil?

You're entitled to your view Simon. Interesting you omit from your list of irrelevancies LGCM? Is it irrelevant that many gays, including many posters here, agree that civil partnerships ARE marriage. I reckon way above any of the people you suggest as irrelevant, the most important person who is not irrelevant is God - what does God think?

When civil partnerships exclude eg sisters, those who are not in a homosexual partnership, and when a reasonable ground for disolution of a civil partnership is withholding sex, then a civil partnership presupposes sexual activity.

The Episcopal Church did not "approve or condone homosexual marriage." The Episcopal Church recognized that some couples of the same sex live together, and that some of these relationships appear to express the love of God, and that those who seek to find a liturgical expression for this are acting within the bonds of the common life of the church. Whether such relationships are or are not "marriage" was not addressed; and any formal approval of liturgical material along these lines was shelved. Admittedly, what was done was too much for some, but let us at least be precise about what was done. The motion passed because it was a compromise, and it left the ardent at both ends of the debate feeling either less than satisfied or simply furious.

Lots of people have wondered when the Archbishop of Canterbury would catch on to the Ahmanson-Scaife-IRD-AAC-Network folks.

Even providing the selected Primates with cell phones and lists and scripts, the whole Ahmanson-Scaife-IRD-AAC-Network plan was bound to founder on the Primates themselves.

I believe the American "usual suspects" don't have the slightest wish to be part of a huge "continuing" communion, but wish to be in charge of the American branch of the existing Anglican Communion.

IMHO it's hard for the so-called global south Primates to see why they should stay in communion with, say, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England and yet break communion with Canada and the United States.

I don't believe the Ahmanson-Scaife-IRD-AAC-Network folks can "keep the whips on" long enough to end up in power.

I have been hoping that the Archbishop of Canterbury has all along understood this and is biding his time to see what fudge could be applied, or whether it would all just fall apart, with the African Primates calling their communion whatever they wish.

The bottom line is that all are welcome at the Anglican table.

There are, however, some Bishops and other leaders who just can't stand it.

Time will tell.

YMMV
Tim Stewart
Honolulu, Hawaii

Thank you, Fr. Haller, for clarifying that the Episcopal Church DID NOT "approve or condone homosexual marriage" at the 2003 GC.

The mis-statements made by the Anglican primates following the leadership of the Primate and Metropolitan of Nigeria are tiresome and very disturbing.

As far as I know, and I helped draft the LGCM response to Civil Partnerships, we have never welcomed CPs as “Gay Marriage”.

Our “official” LGCM line remains that CP’s should be open to all and Marriage should be open to all. We have welcomed CP’s “as a first step” to the full inclusion of gay families within the legal fabric of British Society.

As I recall a government minister said something similar.

Frankly, I remain a bit confused about the current status of the new Marriage Act, although I recognize that that CoE will not be allowing any type of same-sex blessings, etc. I think that the problem is that in making clergy promise celibacy - or at least threatening to make them promise this - sexual activity is certainly presupposed. Thus, while many have oversimplified the issue - "civil partnerships" will not become a sacrament any time soon - there remains a ring of truth to the accusation that the CoE is *allowing* all of this to happen and largely indifferent to it. The bishops certainly could stand against it and forbid their clergy to enter into these partnerships. It is best to be above suspicion - and civil partnerships raise suspicion (and rightly so; we do well to remember that conservatives are not the only ones saying this). While "holding the line", so to speak, on extra-marital sex, it is as if they are looking away so as to not know who will approach it - or who will cross it. Thus, it makes the bishops look ridiculous: and this everyone can agree on.

Best,
Benjamin

The Marriage Act remains untouched by recent legislation.
The government's proposal to change parts of it by statutory instrument - relating to the places marriages could take place - and the introduction of a "marriage license" type scheme instead of Banns etc – didn’t pass the scrutiny of the Lord’s Grand Committee who said primary legislation should be used to effect such a change.
There is no apparent provision for this legislation in the Queen’s speech. It may have been shelved.

Simon,

Why do the regulations on kindred and affinity apply to civil partnerships if sexual activity is not presupposed?

Is it not just remotely possible that what the government SAYS it is doing, and what it INTENDS to do in the Civil Partnerships Act, may not be quite the same thing?

And if the Church of England is not in favour of Civil Partnerships as they have come into being in the new Act, then why did eight out of ten bishops vote for the Act in the House of Lords?

Alan
I suspect that the reasons for retaining the kindred and affinity rules are to prevent successive generations of a family from using CPs to avoid paying inheritance tax, but I might be wrong about that.

I simply don't understand your final question. Why do you think that the Church of England is opposed to Civil Partnerships?

Benjamin wrote:

"The bishops certainly could stand against it and forbid their clergy to enter into these partnerships."

How could they do so? How would such a ban be enforced? Bear in mind that any synodical ban not subsequently accepted by parliament would be legally unenforceable.

Alan Harrison

I am not educated in the nuances of English marrige law -- as we Yanks are not an established church, the rules across the pond are somewhat mysterious. I do know at least a bit about our situation and it does relate to establishment. Oddly enough, over here, EVERYONE is established for one or two purposes.

A minister of any faith community, Christian or not (yes including "neo-pagans",) can be licensed to perform the State's functions in marrying a heterosexual couple in 49 States. In the 50th (Mass.) the couple can be either gay or not. In all 50 States, the same minister is also licensed to certify burials -- that is register the fact that a body has been disposed of. This matters because we have laws that regulate how a body may be disposed of and setting rules for burial lands.

The church, as has been noted above, has not changed its marrige canon. The church has for decades quietly permitted some bishops to authorize liturgical blessings for some lesbian/gay households. The comprimise ressolution which was deeply dissapointing to lesbian / gay cause activists (me among them) simply admitted that.

In those jurisdictions where civil partnerships are recognized, the bishops have either permitted seperate blessings or not -- the mosaic is complex and confusing. Except in Mass. there clearly is no stated assumption of sexual conduct. In fact, two straight people could enter a civil partnership without any difficulty.

Speaking as one American, what I would LIKE to see is the disestablishment of marrige. This actually works rather well in much of Europe where a registered partnership is a civil matter and a church wedding quite another. So, were it up to me, the Episcopal church would forbid its clerics from accepting the State's license, establish rules under which it would bless a civil union, and let marrige be a seperate subject.

FWIW
jimB

Er, have you read their statement section 5? "The Church’s approach to civil partnerships reflects the fact that they will not be marriages, nor based on the presumption of sexual relations between the two people making the legal agreement."

Since the government's presumption is precisely that CPs WILL be predicated on sexual relations, then the Church must logically be opposed to what the government has created in the CPA. The Church might not be opposed to some mythological concept of civil partnerships which it has invented for itself, but since it says it is opposed to the kind of CPs which have been approved by Parliament which do assume a sexual relationship, then the Church must by its own definition be opposed to the ones in the Civil Partnerships Act.

Or is there a third kind of CP about which we have not yet been informed?

Alan, you lost me again. Show me the wording in the Act which references sexual relations, please?

The wording of an Act of Parliament is the only reliable guide to the meaning of that Act.

Simon wrote: 'Alan, you lost me again. Show me the wording in the Act which references sexual relations, please?'

I don't have the wording of the act but it has been stated that refusal or sexual relations can be grounds for a dissolution. So sexual relations are clearly implied.

Mark and Alan
The wording of the Act contains no reference to sexual orientation or to sexual activity.

What Mark is referring to can be found in Andrew Goddard's article here:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/20050723cpa.cfm

Andrew Goddard's personal conclusion needs to be distinguished from his report of what a government spokesman said. The intention of the Government is not the issue: the question is the intention of Parliament. That is expressed by the words of the Act.

This is a fascinating conversation about the complex ways in which the relationship between the government and the Church plays out in England. But I suspect it has little to do with the future of the Anglican Communion. What now seems to matter is not whether or not the Church of England has or has not accepted gay marriages, but whether or not the Archbishop of Nigeria thinks it has. I gather that the Archbishop of Nigeria is now calling the shots. I hope to be dissuaded of this understanding, since it should be clear by now that the Archbishop of Nigeria is trying to turn the Anglican Communion into a very different kind of religious tradition than it has been.

So there we have it! According to contributors so far, neither ECUSA, Canada or the CofE have approved gay marriage or homosexual sexuality!!

Nothing has changed ! Except that someone in a homosexual relationship can now be a Bishop, homosexual relationships can be recognised and blessed, and people who disagree and believe that homosexuality is stil sinful are feeling marginalized by their heirachies...

"No change" or Selling Technique ?!

Simon,
Here are some excerpts from the 2004 Civil Partnership Act, from the official text published by Butterworths:

Section 1 A civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex;
...(3) A civil partnership ends only on death, dissolution or annulment.

Section 3 Eligibility
(1) Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if—
(a) they are not of the same sex,
(b) either of them is already a civil partner or lawfully married,
(c) either of them is under 16, or
(d) they are within prohibited degrees of relationship.

Section 8
...(4) The necessary declaration is a solemn declaration in writing —
(a) that the proposed civil partner believes that there is no impediment of kindred or affinity or other lawful hindrance to the formation of the civil partnership...
___________________________________

In determining the intention of the government and of parliament one must ask certain questions:

Why is the provision restricted to people of the same sex? If it were simply about providing legal rights relating to tax, inheritance etc, there are several categories of people equally needful of such provisions, but the government rejected all attempts to include other people, as Martin Reynolds has already noted. Eight bishops present voted for it in that form and some of them voted against attempts to amend the Bill to provide for other people.

Is it quasi-marriage which the government has set out to create in the Bill which parliament approved?

All the evidence on the face of the Act points in that direction. Kindred and affinity have never been impediments to contracts or company partnerships: they are an issue where people are proposing to enter marriage, in which sexual activity is one of the conditions for the legal existence of the relationship. A marriage which is not consummated can generally be annulled on those grounds.

Why would the CPA speak of ANNULMENT in this context if it were not intended to be a sexual relationship? Surely dissolution would be the only thing required of a standard legal partnership agreement?

And why should being married to someone else preclude someone from forming with another person a relationship which was purely and simply about tax, etc? And why not allow "threesomes" in which three people of the same sex sign such an agreement?

Finally, I suggest you read the Act and see the extent to which it has been interwoven with the existing law relating to marriage.

It is not possible, having read the Act, to conclude anything other than that this is to ALL intents and purposes a form of civil marriage for same-sex couples, one which has been endorsed in the House of Lords by a significant number of bishops.

However much the Church of England now tries to wriggle, it is firmly impaled on a hook which is partly of its own devising, which it had every opportunity over many months to oppose in parliament.

And the clue, for those who have not yet got the plot, is that the same bishops agreed to a corporate policy of asking clergy planning to enter CPs if they planned to remain celibate.

Surely they did not imagine that sex would contaminate such a strictly legal arrangement?

"[T]he Archbishop of Nigeria is trying to turn the Anglican Communion into a very different kind of religious tradition that it has been."

Hmm. . . Has been when? I'm assuming you're talking about "religious tradition" instead of intra-communion relations. From that standpoint, it seems clear that the Archbishop of Nigeria is departing from a variety of practices that have developed and/or become entrenched over the last 50 years or so. However, most of the communion seems to believe that he is not turning away from the religious traditions of the Anglican Communion, but back to the religious traditions of the Anglican Communion. A difference in perspective, I suppose.

Steven

Alan
If you want to believe all that, nothing I can say will stop you doing so.
But on the use of the word "annulment" I fear you may be disappointed. The word is used to refer specifically to the process whereby a purported CP is declared to have been void from the outset. The reasons for this can be less exciting than you seem to think, see section 50.
And rest assured I have long since read the entire text of the act.
Butterworths (or Lexis) subscriptions are not required, it can be found at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040033.htm

Steven, thanks. The Anglican Communion has been a voluntary association of independent religious communities who share a common liturgical tradition and a common historical relationship to the Church of England and thus to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Members of this association have maintained ties both formal and informal and gathered occasionally for mutual support and the sharing of information and understanding. Now, the Archbishop of Nigeria wants to add to that tradition of voluntary association the litmus test of compulsory adherence to his particular interpretation of the theological content of the Christian faith. Such a move goes far beyond traditional Anglican recognition of diversity in interpretation and moves clearly in the direction of an authoritarian structure of enforced doctrinal correctness as a standard for participation.

Thank you, John Wall, for this articulate statement. It seems to me that the move is towards an international Confessional Church rather than a Communion of autonomous churches. Some will see that as an improvement, others not. But clearly it is a change.

I believe Simon errs in wishing to stick strictly to the letter of the law and implying the government’s intention is of no account. As I recall it is some years since the Lords of Appeal made clear that when interpreting statute they might use what government ministers said when introducing and steering legislation through Parliament.
Hence in the Commons:
Angela Eagle: It is no secret that the Bill is an attempt to put in place arrangements that are as close as reasonable to civil marriage, but not holy matrimony. All Front-Bench spokesmen and hon. Members who support the Bill have been quite open about that.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041109/debtext/41109-16.htm
Ministers in the Lords made similar statements.

Martin is correct. I should not have written:
The wording of an Act of Parliament is the only reliable guide to the meaning of that Act,
but rather:
The wording of an Act of Parliament is the most reliable guide to the meaning of that Act.

This is what the government's web site has to say about the differences between marriage and civil partnership (quoted in its entirety):

"How does civil partnership differ from marriage?

Civil Partnership is a completely new legal relationship, exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage.

The Government has sought to give civil partners parity of treatment with spouses, as far as is possible, in the rights and responsibilities that flow from forming a civil partnership.

There are a small number of differences between civil partnership and marriage, for example, a civil partnership is formed when the second civil partner signs the relevant document, a civil marriage is formed when the couple exchange spoken words. Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony as they choose, whereas formation of a civil partnership will be an exclusively civil procedure."

The difference, even in the government's own view, is infinitesimally small.

Read on and you will find that the government is prepared to treat as equivalent to a UK civil partnership the arrangements available in the following overseas countries:

(Schedule 20 to the Act)

"Belgium cohabitation légale (statutory cohabitation)
Belgium marriage
Canada: Nova Scotia domestic partnership
Canada: Quebec civil union
Denmark partnerskab (registered partnership)
Finland rekisteröity parisuhde (registered partnership)
France pacte civile de solidarité (civil solidarity pact)
Germany Lebenspartnerschaft (life partnership)
Iceland staðfesta samvist (confirmed cohabitation)
Netherlands geregistreerde partnerschap (registered partnership)
Netherlands marriage
Norway partnerskap (registered partnership)
Sweden registrerat partnerskap (registered partnership)
United States of America: Vermont civil union

New relationships will be added to Schedule 20 as more countries or territories bring in gay marriage or civil partnership schemes."

http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/lgbt/faq.htm#How%20does%20civil%20partnership%20differ%20from%20marriage

As Martin says, the Government's intentions were/are clearly to provide legal recognition, emulating marriage, for homosexual partnerships. Avoiding the name has reduced resistance in society, and from the church, and given the HoB some wriggle room... though I think the wriggles looks ridiculous to most people who have thought about it.

The HoB are spending much of their credibility on this issue !! I suspect they will look increasingly ridiculous when CPs are up and running, and if when the first clergy openly defy their Bishop on TV he does nothing, that will set a precedent that will make discipline by others extremely difficult.

If I were a liberal Bishop with priests I knew are in homosexual relationships I would already be working out my form of words for the press... or maybe even working them out together with the priests concerned. How about "I will not act on press reports or other hearsay" (for the more conservative) or "This is amatter between the priest and me as his Bishop" (fence sitter) or "How can I discipline a priest for entering into a perfectly legal relationship with the person he/she loves ?" (liberal)

Then I suppose it will be up to the poor Archbishop concerned to decide whether he is prepared to discipline his Bishop, while conservative priests (and eventually some Bishops) are denouncing him on TV and in the papers (despite being told to keep quiet by the Bishops)!!

All a bit inevitable really. and not going to do much for the credibilty of the current CofE heirarchy, or of local churches.. They should have not allowed priests to hold a licence if they enter a CP, and instead provided parallel provisions for inheritance, pensions transfer etc etc

Dave, do you really believe that the C of E could provide "parallel provisons for inheritance transfer, etc" witout running into exactly the same problems?

In fact the problems would be even worse. They'd have to get it all through the synod, remember.

As I read the various comments here, I'm of two minds.

On the one hand, conservatives have a point: "let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No." The CofE *is* fudging this, and their case is persuasive to precisely Slim and None (" . . . and Slim just left town").

On the other, I think there also *is* a case to be made against the . . . overly (and intrusively) *sexualization of EVERYTHING*. Sex *isn't* the point of a CP . . . and it bloody well shouldn't be the point of an (opposite-sex) marriage, either! [I think this "presumption of sex, w/o which let there be annulment" thang is a patriarchal throwback---"Where's my all-important heir already?"---which should be *thrown back*, poste haste. Let the Vatican wax rhapsodic about a presumed "procreative" obligation, but the AC should have no part of it!] Physical expression may be an *aspect* of spousal intimacy, but it does NOT define it.

Bottom-line, it is *possible* to read CPs both ways: deal cut get marriage rights for gays, w/o the term, AND agreeable way for two people---who happen to be of the same sex---to platonically order their lives together for mutual benefit.

Either way, we're still dancing around THE ISSUE: that (gay) same-sex couples believe they are called to ALL the supports/responsibilities/blessings of ***MARRIAGE*** . . . and there is NO GOOD REASON (by Scripture, Tradition or Reason---to say nothing of *civil* law!) to deny it to them.

Back to the merry-go-round . . . :-/

What has been the attitude of the RC Church in France to the 1999 Civil Solidarity Act [PACS]? During the debate in 1999, I recall it being suggested RC clergy could take advantage of the act to provide for their housekeepers----not having more than Franglais to help me, I am not sure this was more than an urban legend.

Has the French experience with PACS and the RC Church been raised in the CoE debate?

George asks an interesting question. I will try and find an answer.
While same-sex marriages abroad are currently to be recognised as CP's in Britain, there is a High Court challenge being mounted by people who are unhappy at this.
My partner's family all live in Canada and we are still mulling over going there for our ceremony. It appears we can have full legal marriage celebrated by an Anglican priest there.
I wonder if bishops will react differently to us if we choose this option rather than a British Civil Partnership?

Dear George, there are some relevant comments from the Vatican here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20030614_family-europe-trujillo_en.html

... but not about whether the priests are using PACS (I guess not given the Vatican's position!)

Dear Andrew, At least if the HoB had taken something to GS and been turned down then they would have been able to say no to the government (who I'm sure would have been flexible in the curcumstances). By going it alone they gave themselves no option but to agree... and now have to persevere down a road to (what looks to me like) great embarassment, and increasing conflict!!

Martin Reynolds writes, "My partner's family all live in Canada and we are still mulling over going there for our ceremony. It appears we can have full legal marriage celebrated by an Anglican priest there."

Martin, I don't think that can be so! Certainly, my partner and I could not be married by the priest of the Anglican Church we've been attending for the last 25 years. Even the diocese of New Westminister, which blesses same-sex unions, is (as far as I know) only blessing civil marriages, not marrying same-sex couples.

Now, that is not to say that some priests have not defied their bishops and synods and performed marriages privately -- I don't know of that happening but it would not surprise me to learn that it had. I know of two blessings that occured outside of New West, for instance. But by and large as far as I know clergy are respecting the current moratorium as we wait for General Synod to discuss and hopefully come to a decision on the theological issues raised in the St Michael report (which I strongly recommend as a model of how to take the debate on same-sex marriage forward prayerfully and respectfully).

However, you can have the same civil marriage as any other two people here in Canada, and there are not many place where that is true. And the more I see of the problems being caused the CofE by civil partnerships, the more glad I am that the Parliament of Canada chose not to go that route in dealing with the court decisions....

The French 1999 Civil Solidarity Act [PACS] mentioned by George Conger is explained somewhat here:
http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/article.php3?id_article=349#sommaire_1

(This does not answer George's question, it merely provides background information.)

Always great reading reactions on thinkinganglicans. Well, whatever the govt. calls it, we still choose to see two people of the same sex being allowed to live in a commited relationship reserved for holy matrimony as a dangerous embrace of something God abhors - SIN. Realy wish we can flow with you guys but cannot until are convinced it is not SIN or you see it as so. - How did the Church get into all these?

Thankyou, Tunde. And that is why I see proactive life and vibrancy in African churches, and derivative social conformity in western ones.

It is an unthinking dogma that there are no simple answers. Third-rate thinkers say that all answers are simple. Second-rate say that all are complex. First rate distinguish between simple and complex on a sliding scale, affirming both the existence of the simple issues and the multitude of the complex ones.

I think the CofE's warped understanding of CP's is entirely their own. As far as I am concerned, civil partnerships are gay civil marriage in all but name.

As for 'holy matrimony', from a bigoted church, I think thats something I would do without even if heterosexual!