Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Gay marriage: Downing Street pleads with Labour to save bill [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(106,048 posts)1. Extending civil partnerships: will it really cost £4bn?
So if there is expected to be little demand for civil partnerships from straight couples why would the costs be that high? It's a good question especially given that one of the main reasons why gay rights campaigners want access to marriage is because it offers more generous pension entitlements.
To quote from a gaystar news article by sometime Guardian contributor Ray Filar:
Now there is a real quandary. Why would extending a less generous pension scheme create a larger liability for the government?
We're going to try and figure this out in the next few hours (and I'd stress try because we don't have our own actuarial advisers to hand). But please do leave any helpful leads below.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check/2013/may/20/civil-partnerships-pensions-how-much-will-it-cost
To quote from a gaystar news article by sometime Guardian contributor Ray Filar:
Civil partners do not have the same pension rights as married couples. If one civil partner dies, the pension share that the surviving partner receives is often lower and lasts for less time than with married couples.
The reason for this is the pension a surviving partner is entitled to is measured differently depending on whether they have been civil partnered or married.
For civil partners, public sector schemes are dated back to 1988. For private sector schemes, it need only be backdated to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
But for married couples, a surviving partner is entitled to a pension based on the number of years their spouse paid into the pension fund.
Now there is a real quandary. Why would extending a less generous pension scheme create a larger liability for the government?
We're going to try and figure this out in the next few hours (and I'd stress try because we don't have our own actuarial advisers to hand). But please do leave any helpful leads below.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check/2013/may/20/civil-partnerships-pensions-how-much-will-it-cost
The explanation:
The only way I can see this cost coming is by assuming that there are heterosexual couples who hate the concept of 'marriage', but are OK (or like) the concept of 'civil partnership', and so have been holding back from getting married, even though it would benefit them, but would enter a civil partnership instead. I think the number of people who feel like that must be tiny (there are a few who have said they won't get married until same sex couple are allowed to, and have symbolically applied for a civil partnership as a protest, but that's different - and, again, I think it's a small number, and the government would have to show a proper survey to determine how many there are. And I think that, once same sex marriages are allowed, they'd go for marriage too).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
27 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Rather buried in all that is that the Labour front bench will support the Loughton amendment
muriel_volestrangler
May 2013
#2
Update: Labour front bench not to support Loughton, but table amendment for 'review'
muriel_volestrangler
May 2013
#5
My message to Labour Party: my vote in exchange for your vote for Equal Rights without any
idwiyo
May 2013
#6
"Marriage" would be a civil partnership, recognised by the state as the only binding contract.
idwiyo
May 2013
#22
So what you seem to be saying is the only option should be 'marriage'
muriel_volestrangler
May 2013
#23
What I am saying is that religion should be taken out of legal binding contracts. Nothing to do with
idwiyo
May 2013
#25
It's not about whether there are differences - you're saying there should only be one version
muriel_volestrangler
May 2013
#27
Amazing to watch folks suddenly care about 'complete equality without qualifiers'
Bluenorthwest
May 2013
#11
They will tie themselves in fucking knots to avoid the actual issue. Can't risk offending
idwiyo
May 2013
#16