Closest thing to "civil partnership" for couple who are not same-sex.

pigpen

HanSpan wrote: »

There are differences! You can't annul a civil partnership just because you don't have sex. You don't have to say the other person is your wife/husband. All of the differences are things I welcome.

You don't have to say wife/husband.. you can call each other your lover if you want .. or bed buddy, or 'im/'er indoors'

In a CP the living partner after one dies isn't entitled to the same pension as if they were married either.. and that is what you want you said, financial security. You cannot welcome that difference

HanSpan

Person_one wrote: »

As I recall, pension rights are different, as they can only be backdated to the time civil partnerships became law.

As stated previously, civil partnerships are not recognised in most other countries.

I note that you haven't responded to my second question in that post though, and I'd be interested in the answer. To save you going back a page it was:

"The 'historical baggage' around CPs is no more pleasant than that around marriage. Does a background of homophobia and discrimination based on sexuality bother you any less than a background of sexism and discrimination based on gender?"

The baggage around why they were created in this country may not be good, but they have been created in other countries for other reasons, not as a second class option but as a modern non-traditional legal partnership.
The situation is also different as there are no particular rituals associated with the act of joining a civil partnership and there are not eons of inequality that are still reflected in those rituals.
Interestingly the campaign for equal civil partnerships actually states that one of the reasons many believe they should be available to heterosexual as well as !!!!!exual couples is that not doing so still implies there is something different and wrong about same sex relationships.
http://equalcivilpartnerships.org.uk/why-does-it-matter/

HanSpan

Person_one wrote: »

As I recall, pension rights are different, as they can only be backdated to the time civil partnerships became law.

Oh & I can't see any evidence of that - although as ever the legal explanation isn't entirely clear:OK yukky link there so I'll try again:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

Person_one

HanSpan wrote: »

Oh & I can't see any evidence of that - although as ever the legal explanation isn't entirely clear:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOkJSL347KAhWDPg8KHZ_1BQkQFggzMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F264844%2F131210___1625_SSM_and_civil_partnership_diff_table_1_.doc&usg=AFQjCNEBvoyiOOuLvWs56u5DFj3hz3e3Vw&sig2=b3kTSpZZ7y4QkgxwDNuodA

1st page of google: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/may/20/civil-partnerships-pensions-how-much-will-it-cost

I know you feel strongly about this, but don't let that blind you to the potential downsides.

POPPYOSCAR

HanSpan wrote: »

There are differences! You can't annul a civil partnership just because you don't have sex. You don't have to say the other person is your wife/husband. All of the differences are things I welcome.

It is only one word, said once.


We never refer to each other as husband and wife, we do not think of each other as husband and wife.


We have no emotional attachment to the wedding, standing in a small room and saying two lines, or to the marriage certificate.


Yes had civil partnership been available we would have gone down that route but we had so much to lose by doing nothing and waiting for the day it would be possible.

HanSpan

pigpen wrote: »

You don't have to say wife/husband.. you can call each other your lover if you want .. or bed buddy, or 'im/'er indoors'

In a CP the living partner after one dies isn't entitled to the same pension as if they were married either.. and that is what you want you said, financial security. You cannot welcome that difference

No you can't - the legal requirement for a marriage in this country is that you have to say - I take you as my husband/wife or something similar. all the options include husband/wife.

And I can find no evidence that, if a civil partnership were available and we did that rather than a marriage that either one of us would be worse off in terms of pensions. It may be just becuase of the type of pensions we have but as far as I can see it won't make a jot of difference.
If you look at the table from the link attached I think it may actually be different if the partner is a woman who paid less than full NI stamp which isn't the case for me.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

HanSpan

pigpen wrote: »

Hanspan, bless you.. if you want a sneaky wedding in Scotland.. tell the rellies you're going for a dirty weekend.. they won't want to know any more! Make it about you, as it all should be. You can be bridezilla or groomzilla or get wed in a chicken suit.. discuss this with your partner.. it is about you both after all.. write the pros and cons.. and the bottom line is.. you want your partner to have legal rights and financial security upon your demise and if marriage is the only way you can ensure that surely the sacrifice now, 15 minutes of a ceremony that will provide both of you with that security is worth it.. 15 minutes to protect each other when the other dies shows great strength of character if you have very strong feelings about it. I'd give my left arm to marry my partner to protect him and our children should I die first, which is likely (I'm older).. I guess I'm the other side of your story in a way.. I want to protect him and marriage is the only way and he wont let me.

I suggest you sit together and discuss it in detail (like we don't ) and see where it leads you, but it has to be about you, both of you and the future.

We have talked about it. We are more similar that you think!

Since my Dad died I have said I'd do it so my SO wouldn't have to pay inheritance tax, but he knows how much I hate the idea of marriage so really isn't willing for me, plus he's never wanted to either.

We bandied around the idea of using a solicitor that helped me with Dad's will who we had a good laugh with, and saying vows something like "I take you for as long as its suits us for tax purposes" or something equally flippant, but it still has to have the dratted wife/husband words in it, and I'd still be "married" and after 25 years he knows how I feel.
Mind you he's not keen either - not for the same reasons but he's really never wanted to get married so I could find he will baulk at the idea for his own reasons even if I talk myself round enough!

As to the rellies - you do NOT know my rellies. Saying we were off for a dirty weekend would be the most dangerous thing ever if we hoped to keep it quiet

HanSpan

Person_one wrote: »

1st page of google: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/may/20/civil-partnerships-pensions-how-much-will-it-cost

I know you feel strongly about this, but don't let that blind you to the potential downsides.

I can't make that and the official govt website differences table match up. Have you read it? To me that seems to say theya re the same for married couples & civil partnerships unless they are old enough that very old rules about women and national insurance apply.

I can't actually work out what he'd get of mine anyway - I suppose I'll have to write to my opension people to be sure.
However as we stand at the moment I know he'd get none of my pension, so if we were civil partners and he got half of only some of it that would still be better than if I were run over tomorrow!
Plus which that's not going to be much anyway so that really won't make that much difference. All the other financial & tax benefits that he would get as a civil partner (or husband) are far more valuable than part of my pension.

HanSpan

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

It is only one word, said once.

We never refer to each other as husband and wife, we do not think of each other as husband and wife.

We have no emotional attachment to the wedding, standing in a small room and saying two lines, or to the marriage certificate.

Yes had civil partnership been available we would have gone down that route but we had so much to lose by doing nothing and waiting for the day it would be possible.

I know its just said once, but I would *be* one, and I would know even if no-one else did.
And I can't see how we could keep it entirely secret - wouldn't we have to alter our wills? And if so we'd then have to show the backup executors (incase we get runover by the same bus) and once they know it would start to spread.

Person_one

HanSpan wrote: »

Have you read it?

Of course I have, have you? It makes perfect sense.

As it stands same sex couples do not have the same pension rights as married opposite sex couples. If CPs are introduced for all, the government has to decide whether to extend that inequality to opposite sex couples in CPs or to extend the same rights to all couples with either marriages or CPs. Apparently, pension equality only matters when its straight folk that are the ones potentially missing out!