Scots divided over civil partnership options, responses show

Public opinion is divided on the options put forward by the Scottish Government in its Review of Civil Partnership consultation, the analysis of responses reveals.

However the newly published document gives little away about the balance of opinion for and against the three options put forward, focusing rather on the reasons given for respondents' views. A total of 411 responses were received, 93% of them (382) from individual members of the public.

“Most but not all of those commenting made their support for, or opposition to, the introduction of opposite sex civil partnership clear”, the analysis states. But it reports only that 360 such comments were made, without declaring the majority view, on the basis that “the analysis is qualitative and focuses on setting out the range of issues raised by respondents”.

The consultation, which ran from September to December 2015, asked for views on three possibilities:

• no change to the present law, so that civil partnerships would remain available for same sex couples only;
• no more new civil partnerships to be entered into in Scotland from a date in the future, without affecting people already in a civil partnership; and
• the introduction of opposite sex civil partnership.

It questioned the future of civil partnership given the newly available choice of marriage for those in same sex relationships. While views were invited on extending civil partnership to heterosexual couples, ministers were said to be opposed to this, believing that demand would be low; there would be limited recognition in other jurisdictions; society's understanding of it here might be limited; Scots law provides some rights already for cohabitants; there would be costs; and such couples seeking to enter into a registered relationship already have the option of marriage, including a civil (or belief) marriage ceremony.

Objections were raised however that any increased complexity would not be significant, particularly in comparison with the changes required to introduce same sex civil partnership and then same sex marriage – and was not a valid argument against doing what was right. It was doubted that the costs would be significant, and argued that introduction might produce more stable family relationships.

There were also those who had been married before and did not wish to or could not do so again, and those who believed marriage to be a misogynistic or patriarchal institution.

The concern raised most frequently by those who agreed with the Government's overall position was that the introduction of opposite sex civil partnership would undermine the institution of marriage. Marriage was the available form of legal arrangement and should be supported as an institution. There was no need for an alternative and little evidence of real demand. It was society (past or present) and not marriage that was to blame for any negative values attached to marriage. Civil partnerships would be less stable and would bring more risk to children.

On the other options, comments were made that it might be premature to abolish civil partnership at this stage, and there appeared to be a continuing modest demand for same sex civil partnerships in 2015. Inadequate consideration had been given to the implications of making further changes at this stage. But there were also those who objected to a continued imbalance between same sex and opposite sex couples, and a separate and distinct status for same sex couples – as well as those who continue to object to any legal recognition of same sex relationships.

Some noted that the majority of jurisdictions that have same sex marriage either offer civil partnership to both opposite and same sex couples or to neither.

The impact of no change on bisexuals and transgender people was also raised, including that if no changes are made, bisexual and trans people may have limited options depending on the gender identity of their partner, and that transgender people in civil partnerships would have to continue to convert those civil partnerships into marriage prior to obtaining gender recognition.

Click here to view the analysis document.