Sister Act

Yesterday I posted about one of the more disturbing fallouts from the push for gay marriage -- right-wing attempts to use state DOMAs to strike down domestic violence protections for unmarried people. Well today I have a far more rousing incident to report. Two elderly sisters in Britain are suing the UK in the European Court of Human Rights for the right to get gay married!

Well, not exactly. But in one of the more felicitous and surprising developments to result from same-sex union drives, Joyce (88) and Sybil Burden (80), of Ogbourne St. George, are demanding that the UK extend to cohabitating, dependent family members the same rights that same-sex couples enjoy under Britain's Civil Partnership Act. That act, passed in 2004, extends almost all the rights of marriage to unrelated, same-sex partners, including the right to avoid inheritance taxes in the event of the death of one partner. That last bit is key since if their lawsuit (and one of the sisters' health) fails, the survivor will be forced to sell the house they designed, built and lived in together for 41 years, leaving her homeless.

Under the Civil Partnership Act, you don't need to be queer, conjugal or even cohabitating to register as civil partners; you just need to be unrelated, unmarried, of the same-sex, and sign an affidavit in front of a registrar and two witnesses. Joyce and Sybil Burden don't qualify merely because they are related.

If under British law, Katha gets a share of her new husband's UK pension (congratulations Katha!), it seems most unfair that these two dames are essentially treated as if they were strangers. As Sybil Burden said to the Times, "We are looked down upon for being single. We just want to be treated as equal citizens and given the rights we deserve. We've saved the Government thousands by caring for our elderly sick relatives till they passed away and have never claimed a penny apart from the pension." Jolly good, ladies!

The Beyond Marriage statement I helped draft calls for exactly the sort of household recognitions that would aid the Burdens and other elderly, unmarried people. Alas, Britain's version of same-sex union is far more progressive than anything available in the US; it doesn't require conjugality and explicitly forbids religious participation. This latest twist only accentuates the yawning gap between Europe and the US on these matters since in this country we're beating back attempts -- from right-wingers and gay marriage advocates -- to heighten the difference between married and unmarried people.

Comments (29)

1. mark my word, in less than 25 years domestic partnerships will outnumber marriages.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 10:59am

2. Darla, Chip here. What makes you think that? And by "domestic partnerships" is that gay and straight?

   CT

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/06/2006 @ 11:20am

3. unmarried couples, gay or straight.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 11:25am

4. You believe there will be a tremendous rejection of traditional values over the next 25 years? (ie traditional as we (baby boomers) watched and were taught them?

   CT

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/06/2006 @ 11:42am

5. The clear point of this story (helping those sharing a household gain benefits) is fine...if you take the time to understand it.

   But isn't this going to play RIGHT into the hands of those who oppose gay marriage/domestic partnership/etc, as some James Dobson "Focus on the Family" commentary about "See, we're already seeing incest emerge, as two sisters in England are petitioning for such benefits!!!" (atleast 3 exclamation points needed)?

   Posted by Mask at 09/06/2006 @ 12:11pm

6. Is this the first partnership based on the economics of co-habitation? These sisters are quite honest about the facts at hand and should certainly be permitted to act as a single unit. (As opposed to plastic-boobed pseudo blondes who hook up with old rich guys.....which is more "traditional" and wholesome?)

   Posted by leftofcenter at 09/06/2006 @ 12:28pm

7. Yes great...

   liberals rejected Conservative's arguments against "gay marriage" that were based on the slippery slope fallacy.

   Well...

   The slope has just been slipped!

   Now we have two sisters trying to argue that insestuous relationships should be sanctioned by the state as "marriage"

   I bet liberals are so proud of themselves!

   Thank God I live in a state that has defined what constitutes "marriage".

   Memo to gays, and those with relationships that involve insest, DO NOT move to Oklahoma to get married. We will kick you out or throw you in jail, which ever is more convienent for us.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 09/06/2006 @ 1:30pm

8. i don't see this relationship as being incestuous at all.

   i think that todd and mask are simply.....uh.....wacko.

   guys, think beyond the box. think deeper.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 1:36pm

9. Posted by DARLADOON 09/06/2006 @ 1:36pm |

   And you DARLA...need to "read deeper".

   "I" didn't say that "I" thought that. I agree with the idea. I SAID that it could be used by the Religious Righties AGAINST such domestic partnership laws here in the US.

   Okay?

   Posted by Mask at 09/06/2006 @ 1:41pm

10. Darla,

    I'm thinking as deeply as I want to, don't think that your smart enough to tell me how to think, I'm positive you don't own the key the "intelligence" vault.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 09/06/2006 @ 1:43pm

11. Posted by MASK 09/06/2006 @ 12:11am | ignore this person

    Posted by MASK 09/06/2006 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person

    OK...let me get this straight. You agree with the idea, but you don't think that the idea should be actually implemented, because by doing so the opponents of the idea would be provided "ammunition" with which to oppose the idea which has already been implemented. Very confusing.

    Posted by liveeasy at 09/06/2006 @ 1:57pm

12. And how the hell did incest get introduced into this discussion, anyway? I live with my brother...does that mean we engage in incest???

    Posted by liveeasy at 09/06/2006 @ 1:59pm

13. "the right to avoid inheritance taxes in the event of the death of one partner. That last bit is key since if their lawsuit (and one of the sisters' health) fails, the survivor will be forced to sell the house they designed, built and lived in together for 41 years, leaving her homeless. "

    Sounds more like an issue for the tax courts in a socialists money grab from 2 old ladies who probably have paid a fortune in taxes already..This has nothing to do with marriage, but to be able to have something left if one dies...some one say DEATH TAX? Here is an example for killing one.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/06/2006 @ 2:11pm

14. The people that are responsible for possibly putting these 2 on the street is the governmemt tax codes...leave marriage out of it.

    Unitended consequences anyone? Cradle to grave is evident.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/06/2006 @ 2:12pm

15. Posted by LIVEEASY 09/06/2006 @ 1:57pm

    Nooooooooo......I MERELY SAID that Religious Righties, like Dobson can talk to guys like OKSPORTSGUY and his friends and USE this as "evidence" that "gay marriage will lead to bestiality, pedophilia, and incest".

    Talking political realities here, folks. You think it's a "dead issue" out there in Heartland Country? All it takes is one example (for instance, sisters in England attempting to get the domestic partnership benefits expanded) that can be SPUN into their paradigm of where equal rights for all are concerned....

    and you get some Republican accusing his opponent of supporting it, and another Democrat getting cowed into backing away from it!

    Okay?....my lefty friends....see? On your side on this one....just putting out a warning of what may come....okay???

    Posted by Mask at 09/06/2006 @ 3:43pm

16. no mask, you're just looking for ways to criticize anything and everything on this site.

    because......you have no life! same with maasch, who foolishly confuses the 'estate tax' with the benefits that heterosexuals currently enjoy with 'marriage'.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 5:25pm

17. Posted by DARLADOON 09/06/2006 @ 5:25pm

    Dang, DARLA....I can't even AGREE with you and Richard Kim, yet warn of how the Other Side might spin this???

    Posted by Mask at 09/06/2006 @ 6:55pm

18. Posted by MASK 09/06/2006 @ 6:55pm

    There is strategic wisdom in U.S. Grant's response to upon his appointment to command the Army of the Potomoc. When he was besieged with questions about whether he was concerned about what General Lee might do to the Army of the Potomoc, his response was that the proper concern of the Army of the Potomoc was to cause General Lee concern about what the Army of the Potomoc might do to him.

    A long winded and roundabout way of expressing the strategic advantage that may be obtained by simply growing a spine and then using it.

    Faint heart ne'er won fair maiden. etc., etc...

    Posted by canaar at 09/06/2006 @ 7:27pm

19. oops...should be response to doubters...

    Posted by canaar at 09/06/2006 @ 7:28pm

20. Posted by CANAAR 09/06/2006 @ 7:27pm

    Maybe, CANAAR, but I'm sure Grant wasn't IGNORING Lee...or his strategies...or how he had won in the past.

    Two sisters pushing for expansion of domestic partnership benefits in the UK....is tailor-made for the Fundy Christians who want to link any homosexual rights to things like incest. It doesn't have to be accurate or even entirely true....just plausible enough to stir up the Bible Belters into thinking that "Them libs are going to do like their Euro-trash brethren and make incest lesbianism a 'right'!!!!"

    Posted by Mask at 09/07/2006 @ 08:58am

21. if i hear the word 'incest' one more time, i'm going to scream

    co-habitation does NOT equal incest. if it did, almost every single family in the world would be incestuous.

    furthermore, incest is, and always has been, a taboo. only a tiny fraction of individuals will engage in it. and they will do so with or without the government's position.

    so, in other words, mask, your argument is pointless.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2006 @ 10:12am

22. Posted by DARLADOON 09/07/2006 @ 10:12am

    Is it, DARLA?

    Given my argument IS that James Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and the Fundy TV Preachers might use this incident with the Burden Sisters as fodder for their "gay marriage leads to incest"...

    Do you really think that can't or won't happen?

    Posted by Mask at 09/07/2006 @ 10:44am

23. if that happens mask, then i will grant you a (quiet) compliment.

    but let's be serious: is there ANY indication that incest exists between these two women?

    all your argument proves is that:

    dobson and falwell are idiots

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2006 @ 10:59am

24. dobson and falwell are idiots

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/07/2006 @ 10:59am

    And DD...24 hours later....we STILL agree.

    Posted by Mask at 09/07/2006 @ 12:13pm

25. I wish I had a sister so that we could be domestic partners.

    What about us real singletons? Don't we deserve health care and other basic human rights?

    Posted by leftbehinds at 09/07/2006 @ 12:56pm

26. Posted by LEFTBEHINDS 09/07/2006 @ 12:56am

    Sorry, unless you live with SOMEBODY....as the Preacher said in "Blazing Saddles"...

    "Son...you're on your own!"

    Posted by Mask at 09/07/2006 @ 1:05pm

27. This entire thread is why the United States needs to....as many of the states already done....define the term "marriage"

    If we at least defined the word marriage nationally, we wouldn't be wasting time arguing...

    gays, sisters, brothers, and any other....let's call them....non-traditional relationships that want the financial benefits afforded to married couples should get those benefits under some "civil co-habitation agreement".

    We need to define "marriage" on a national level.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 09/07/2006 @ 2:27pm

28. We need to define "marriage" on a national level.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 09/07/2006 @ 2:27pm

    That's easy todd bot. Marriage is the ceremony that happens in the church. And since freedom of religion is a stated right, any church that wishes to marry gay couples is well within their right.

    The license that two people get from the state when they are in love will remain the civil portion

    Posted by Will C. at 09/07/2006 @ 11:02pm

29. Will,

    regarding Posted by WILL C. 09/07/2006 @ 11:02pm

    That's great....but here's the problem, not all people will agree with your definition. Many states have already changed thier state constitutions so that churches within the states can not marry gay couples.

    Todd

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 09/08/2006 @ 08:41am