Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Abolishing marriage

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Abolishing marriage: can civil partnership cover it?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Abolishing marriage: can civil partnership cover it? / Beresford, Sarah; Falkus, Caroline.
In: Liverpool Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, 04.2009, p. 1-12.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Beresford, S & Falkus, C 2009, 'Abolishing marriage: can civil partnership cover it?', Liverpool Law Review, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-009-9053-1

APA

Beresford, S., & Falkus, C. (2009). Abolishing marriage: can civil partnership cover it? Liverpool Law Review, 30(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-009-9053-1

Vancouver

Beresford S, Falkus C. Abolishing marriage: can civil partnership cover it? Liverpool Law Review. 2009 Apr;30(1):1-12. doi: 10.1007/s10991-009-9053-1

Author

Beresford, Sarah ; Falkus, Caroline. / Abolishing marriage : can civil partnership cover it?. In: Liverpool Law Review. 2009 ; Vol. 30, No. 1. pp. 1-12.

Bibtex

@article{f4ba73e7ed4b406cb53a1eec9836367b,
title = "Abolishing marriage: can civil partnership cover it?",
abstract = "This paper argues that all adult intimate relationships should be regulated under one single statute. This statute should be the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (which currently applies to same sex couples). The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (which applies to opposite sex couples), should be repealed; it should not be amended to include same sex couples. There would, as a consequence, be no such thing as (legal) marriage. Marriage as a legal construct is a heterosexual and patriarchal institution and is therefore so fundamentally flawed it is beyond the possibility of successful reform or repair. The present system of having two distinct legal means of relationship recognition is akin to sexual apartheid and is therefore unsustainable in the long term. Having a legal system which recognises only one form of legal partnership would therefore formally end a discriminatory system. Despite its drawbacks, Civil Partnership does not have the same extent of symbolic and practical degree of flaws as Marriage.",
keywords = "Civil partnership, Marriage, Opposite sex, Same sex, Law",
author = "Sarah Beresford and Caroline Falkus",
year = "2009",
month = apr,
doi = "10.1007/s10991-009-9053-1",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "1--12",
journal = "Liverpool Law Review",
issn = "1572-8625",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Abolishing marriage

T2 - can civil partnership cover it?

AU - Beresford, Sarah

AU - Falkus, Caroline

PY - 2009/4

Y1 - 2009/4

N2 - This paper argues that all adult intimate relationships should be regulated under one single statute. This statute should be the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (which currently applies to same sex couples). The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (which applies to opposite sex couples), should be repealed; it should not be amended to include same sex couples. There would, as a consequence, be no such thing as (legal) marriage. Marriage as a legal construct is a heterosexual and patriarchal institution and is therefore so fundamentally flawed it is beyond the possibility of successful reform or repair. The present system of having two distinct legal means of relationship recognition is akin to sexual apartheid and is therefore unsustainable in the long term. Having a legal system which recognises only one form of legal partnership would therefore formally end a discriminatory system. Despite its drawbacks, Civil Partnership does not have the same extent of symbolic and practical degree of flaws as Marriage.

AB - This paper argues that all adult intimate relationships should be regulated under one single statute. This statute should be the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (which currently applies to same sex couples). The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (which applies to opposite sex couples), should be repealed; it should not be amended to include same sex couples. There would, as a consequence, be no such thing as (legal) marriage. Marriage as a legal construct is a heterosexual and patriarchal institution and is therefore so fundamentally flawed it is beyond the possibility of successful reform or repair. The present system of having two distinct legal means of relationship recognition is akin to sexual apartheid and is therefore unsustainable in the long term. Having a legal system which recognises only one form of legal partnership would therefore formally end a discriminatory system. Despite its drawbacks, Civil Partnership does not have the same extent of symbolic and practical degree of flaws as Marriage.

KW - Civil partnership

KW - Marriage

KW - Opposite sex

KW - Same sex

KW - Law

U2 - 10.1007/s10991-009-9053-1

DO - 10.1007/s10991-009-9053-1

M3 - Journal article

VL - 30

SP - 1

EP - 12

JO - Liverpool Law Review

JF - Liverpool Law Review

SN - 1572-8625

IS - 1

ER -