Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a legal status which has existed for less than 20 years, the law concerning same-sex partnerships and religion has had a turbulent and somewhat confusing history. This chapter examines the story so far. The first part examines how the Civil Partnership Act 2004 originally ignored religion, copying the template of civil marriage. It then charts how this approach fell apart with the introduction of religious civil partnerships. The second part looks at the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 that built upon the existing structure for opposite-sex marriage rather than using the opportunity to craft a modernised, rationalised and codified law on marriage. This has led to an increasingly complex legal framework as shown by the ‘quadruple lock’ that permits but does not oblige religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 was introduced in response to two private Member’s bills, which interestingly both sought to introduce a mechanism for both homo- and heterosexual couples.1 However, unlike these Bills, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 provided recognition and protection only in the case of ‘a relationship between two people of the same sex’ (section 1(1)). Much of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 used ‘civil marriage as a template for the processes, rights and responsibilities that go with civil partnership’.2 The restrictions on who could enter a civil partnership replicated those for marriage, but for the requirement that the partners had to be of the same sex (sections 3 and 4). Using the template of civil marriage meant that significant confusion existed as to the differences between the two statuses. In Wilkinson v Kitzinger3 it was stated that the Act bestowed upon civil partners ‘effectively all the rights, responsibilities, benefits and advantages of civil marriage save the name’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".