A look back: the introduction of the Civil Partnership Act 2001
In the summer of 2001, the time had come: the Civil Partnership Act came into force. What was celebrated by some as a form of recognition did not go far enough for others even then. Even today, it is clear that the law was important on the road to equality and should not be underestimated. Certainly, however, there would have been even more tolerant alternatives.
Either way, the law is now two decades old. Reason enough to take a little trip down memory lane.
A heated discussion in the 1990s
The Civil Partnership Act was of course not introduced "overnight", but was the product of long debates. While it was important to many people within the community to be at least "somehow" (to some extent) equal, others set other priorities. They focused less on gay marriage and more on the need for fundamental change in society.
Among those who fought for equality for same-sex marriage and thus also for the Civil Partnership Act were also many celebrities and politicians. The Green Party, in particular, repeatedly made the case that the laws that discriminated against same-sex love needed to be changed.
When Red-Green formed the government at the end of the 1990s, the plan was slowly but surely put into practice. Since the red government was far less tolerant than the green government, the aforementioned civil partnership law was agreed upon.
How unfair was the Civil Partnership Act?
One reason why the Civil Partnership Act is still massively criticized today is the fact that it formed the basis for unequal tax treatment. Or in other words: same-sex and heterosexual couples were taxed differently. In addition, children adopted within a gay marriage also had fewer rights than children in a "classical" family.
Depending on where the "gay marriage" was performed, it was not even registered at the registry office, but at alternative offices. Another slap in the face of those who fought for equal rights.
Several steps in the right direction
The good news, however, is that a lot has happened over time in terms of equality and the like - and that it is therefore all the easier to see the Civil Partnership Act (despite all the criticisms) as an important step.
Thus, the above-mentioned tax disadvantages were reduced more and more. The so-called "principle of equal treatment" played an increasingly important role here.
In 2017, a vote was then held - in some cases with great media impact - on marriage for all. There was great joy about the result - especially among the Greens, who had been pursuing this goal for about 30 years. The Civil Partnership Act was thus history, making it one of the laws characterized by a comparatively short period of validity.
Would marriage for all have been possible without the Civil Partnership Act?
Certainly, it would be due to a view through rose-colored glasses to claim that heterosexuals and homosexuals are treated 100% equally before the state (or by society).
Many members of rainbow families explain that they would still feel discriminated against by the current laws - especially in connection with lesbian parents and the adoption of children. Because: the question "Who is considered the mother? Only the woman who gave birth to the child or also her partner? " Or "Is there a need for an adoption procedure?" still plays an important role here in particular - and forces lesbian couples to deal with a variety of hurdles.
Conclusion: Marriage for all was of course a step in the right direction, and had it not been for the far-reaching discussions surrounding the Civil Partnership Act, (rudimentary) equality of this kind would certainly not have been possible so quickly. However, a look at the details also shows that there is still a lot of injustice within the construct of "marriage for all", which is perceived especially by those affected and often less by outsiders. It is therefore all the more important to deal openly with the issue in order to possibly also sensitize those who are of the opinion "Actually, you have no reason to complain!".
Have you noticed that Tessa Ganserer is on the ballot with her male name?