If you actually read the article, there is nothing weird about this. Civil partnerships are not inherently romantic/sexual, it's a way for people who live together long term to make sure they can pass their estate to the other if something were to happen to them. Now a days with how expensive housing is this is a good solution. If people can end up living in a life long roommate situation this would be a way to make sure those people are protected so they don't lose their house when one of them passes away. I don't see any reason why siblings should be excluded. If you are single, what better roommate than your sibling? It's not a marriage.
This is getting way out of control.
Can my dog and cat enter into a Civil Partnership, please?
Oh - and the Grapes & Apricots want to get married.
David Stringer did you read the article? They own a home together. Under current UK law, when one of them dies the surviving sister will have to sell the family home to pay inheritance tax, because they don't have any rights for probate.
Read the article before commenting.
I think this is a good idea. Civil partnerships should be allowed for any two consenting adults. It's not the same as being married. If you're willing to commit to each other, you should be able to partner.
Ok, that's enough internet for the year.
Whether the answer is a civil partnership or a change elsewhere, I definitely feel they have a point and I am inclined to agree on their views.
It's civil partnership, and it doesn't have to be a romantic one, I guess. So why not? They are life partners.
I would agree that given the romantic implications of a civil partnership, even if those are only cultural, we should perhaps look at new legislation to deal with people in these kind of platonic circumstances.
Hey trolls, read the actual article!...
And I want one with my dog, another with my ipod.............
We are living in the 21st century and as we all know its nigh on impossible to have a home as a single person! Those that do are lucky and not everyone is living as 2.4 kids families these days either. This is just highlighting how in the dark ages our law system is for whats actually going on in our society. Bit like the rest of the government stuck in medievil times. We need a modern government that moves with the actual times!
It's an inheritance tax dodge, plain and simple. The better answer is to campaign for more overhauling of the tax system, specifically where inheritance tax is concerned.
It's the inheritance tax laws that need revised.
In the US siblings already have certain benefits, like assumptions of gifts for taxes, visitation, assumptions of legal roles, etc. These issues seem to highlight lapses in services and legal rights more than they do about the state of unions and marriages.
Just the headline alone made me think "No way!" but actually reading the article... I can't help but think "Why not?" Makes perfect sense.
Ok, in that case, can I be in a civil partnership with my 3 year old son?
I have been more than surprised on this article, Europe,Scandinavian's and Canada have always been more advance in one's rights, than the U.S. To read that individuals rights as 'partnership" just now being recognized am little beyond shock.. .. Congratulation.
This is getting way out of control.
Can my dog and cat enter into a Civil Partnership, please?
Oh - and the Grapes & Apricots want to get married.
David Stringer did you read the article? They own a home together. Under current UK law, when one of them dies the surviving sister will have to sell the family home to pay inheritance tax, because they don't have any rights for probate.
Read the article before commenting.
I think this is a good idea. Civil partnerships should be allowed for any two consenting adults. It's not the same as being married. If you're willing to commit to each other, you should be able to partner.
Ok, that's enough internet for the year.
Whether the answer is a civil partnership or a change elsewhere, I definitely feel they have a point and I am inclined to agree on their views.
It's civil partnership, and it doesn't have to be a romantic one, I guess. So why not? They are life partners.
I would agree that given the romantic implications of a civil partnership, even if those are only cultural, we should perhaps look at new legislation to deal with people in these kind of platonic circumstances.
Hey trolls, read the actual article!...
And I want one with my dog, another with my ipod.............
We are living in the 21st century and as we all know its nigh on impossible to have a home as a single person! Those that do are lucky and not everyone is living as 2.4 kids families these days either. This is just highlighting how in the dark ages our law system is for whats actually going on in our society. Bit like the rest of the government stuck in medievil times. We need a modern government that moves with the actual times!
It's an inheritance tax dodge, plain and simple. The better answer is to campaign for more overhauling of the tax system, specifically where inheritance tax is concerned.
It's the inheritance tax laws that need revised.
In the US siblings already have certain benefits, like assumptions of gifts for taxes, visitation, assumptions of legal roles, etc. These issues seem to highlight lapses in services and legal rights more than they do about the state of unions and marriages.
Just the headline alone made me think "No way!" but actually reading the article... I can't help but think "Why not?" Makes perfect sense.
Ok, in that case, can I be in a civil partnership with my 3 year old son?
I have been more than surprised on this article, Europe,Scandinavian's and Canada have always been more advance in one's rights, than the U.S. To read that individuals rights as 'partnership" just now being recognized am little beyond shock.. .. Congratulation.