Madam, - Tom Finegan (November 14th) misrepresents the proposals in the Civil Partnership Bill to fit his argument.
As far as same-sex couples are concerned, the Civil Partnership Bill proposes a series of limited (but nevertheless welcome) rights, mostly relating to property and income matters. This may mean, for example, that my partner of 15 years can benefit from a proportion of the pension to which I contribute, rather than being reliant on State benefits in the event of my death. It will mean that she does not have to pay inheritance tax on the home that we share and jointly own.
The Civil Partnerships Bill does not confer "significant financial and legal benefits with same-sex couples receiving everything but the title of married spouses", precisely because the Bill assumes that same-sex couples do not, and will not, have children. In other words, it upholds the unique status of marriage as the primary institution for the rearing of children.
Whether you agree with this position or not (and as a soon-to-be parent of a child whose rights are limited because of who her parents are, I clearly do not), it is highly misleading to suggest that the Civil Partnership Bill as proposed is anything but limited in its scope. - Yours, etc,