Scottish Government

Chapter three Same sex couples

3.1 There is growing visibility of same sex partnerships. The Scottish Census in 2001 reported that 2% of cohabiting couples in Scotland were of the same sex (Morrison et al 2004).There is also growing recognition in law of same sex partnerships in many jurisdictions, such as same sex marriages in some US states, registered partnerships in the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and PACs (Pacte Civil de Solidarité) in France. In the UK the Civil Partnership Act 2004 will provide a new status as registered partners to partners of the same sex who cannot legally marry. The current Family Law (Scotland) Bill has provision for same sex partners who have not entered into registered partnerships that are similar to its provisions for unmarried, opposite sex cohabitees. Many of these reforms have been driven by European human rights requirements, rather than as a response to public opinion.

3.2 The extent to which Scottish public opinion sees same sex partnerships in similar terms to mixed sex partnerships is not known, so that the module questions, as in Figure 2 below, sought to ascertain those views in relation to several specific scenarios. Half of respondents were asked about hypothetical scenarios involving male same sex couples, and half involving female same sex couples.

Relationship breakdown

3.3 The same scenario as for a married couple and an unmarried mixed sex cohabiting couple, discussed in the previous chapter, was presented, asking about obligations for financial support for an economically disadvantaged partner when a long standing relationship breaks down. As Table 3.1 shows, 60% of respondents did not think there should be a support obligation following the breakdown of a same sex couple relationship, with little difference if the couple are male or female, compared with 47% who did not think there should be one for childless married couples, and 57% for cohabiting couples. Thus, there is a surprising level of similarity in views that there should not be a support obligation after separation for all types of childless couples, albeit with higher levels for those not actually married, whether same or opposite sex. However, more felt strongly negative (definitely should not) about support for separated same sex couples. The other side of the coin is that about one third of respondents thought there should be the possibility for an economically disadvantaged partner to claim financial support.

Note: see Tables 2.1 and 2.3.

3.4 Where a same sex relationship ends by death, public attitudes towards inheritance and pensions issues favour greater parity of treatment with married couples than is allowed by current arrangements. Three quarters of respondents thought that a partner should be allowed to keep the home in the same way as a married couple (Table 3.2), although the majority (about 70%) were aware that same sex couples have no such right (Table 3.3). Respondents whose knowledge of the law was correct on this issue were slightly less likely (76%) than those whose knowledge of the law was incorrect (84%) to think a same sex partner should be able to keep the home than those with an incorrect understanding of the law (984%), following the pattern seen earlier that those with a correct understanding of law are more likely to agree with legal norms than those with incorrect knowledge.

3.5 A majority (about two thirds) thought that a surviving same sex partner should be exempt from payment of inheritance tax on the couple's home (Table 3.4) and should be similarly entitled to their partner's occupational pension (Table 3.5). However, on both issues, a lower proportion of respondents favoured parity of treatment for same sex couples as for mixed sex cohabitees. The differences of opinion towards male and female same sex couples were slight (5% for all three attitude questions), though higher support for parity of treatment was found for lesbian couples than for gay male couples.

* Table 2.6.

* See Table 2.5.

Same sex couples and parenthood

3.6 While there is strong support for greater parity of treatment for same sex couples on partnership issues such as pensions, inheritance and, to a lesser degree, financial support on relationship breakdown, a more complex and gender differentiated pattern is suggested in relation to parenthood. Respondents were asked if a same sex couple in a stable partnership should be allowed to adopt in the same way as a married couple. Overall, most respondents (56%) thought they should not be able to do so, but with a sharp gender difference. In relation to lesbian couples, respondents were equally divided between those who thought they should (46%) and should not (47%) be able to adopt. However in relation to male couples, there was a clear balance of opinion against the possibility of adoption: 65% against compared with 29% in favour. This suggests that while there may be a high level of support for more egalitarian treatment of same sex and mixed sex couples around partnership issues, this support does not seem to apply to the same extent to parenthood issues, where responses were sensitive to the gender of the same sex couple. However, since the survey had only one item on same sex couples and parenthood, and this relates to somewhat unusual circumstances, this needs to be read with caution.

How do knowledge and attitudes vary across the population?

3.7 We presented evidence in chapter 2 (Tables 2.10 and 2.11) on variations within the population of attitudes towards rights of partners and parity of treatment when same sex relationships end. In relation to attitudes towards whether same sex couples should be allowed to adopt a child on the same basis as a married couple, those with some educational qualifications are more likely than those with none to favour parity of treatment with married couples. Similarly, women are more likely than men, and younger people more than older people, to favour parity of treatment (Table 3.7). No significant differences appeared in relation to social class or housing tenure.