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

Person_one

HanSpan wrote: »

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!

Is this perhaps more significant than you'd like to admit?

HanSpan

Person_one wrote: »

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!

I'm not trying to be difficult, I genuinely can't understand where there would be a difference for my SO and I and I want to understand if I'm missing something. From the table:

State pensions
Marriage

Under the 2013 Act, married same sex couples are treated the same as men married to women, irrespective of their gender. They may be entitled to a lower-rate basic pension based on their spouse’s National Insurance record only where the spouse was born after 5 April 1950.


Civil Partnerships
Civil partners are treated the same as men married to women, irrespective of their gender. They may be entitled to a lower-rate basic pension based on their civil partner’s National Insurance record only where the civil partner was born after 5 April 1950.

I can't see the difference unless one of us had not paid enough NI to get a state pension in our own right, or is there something I'm missing?

theoretica

Personally, I would like to see a world where the legal protections (and duties such as lower rates of some benefits for couples than for two single people) were available to any committed pair of people, not just people expected to be sleeping together. It makes me very annoyed when I occasionally read of siblings who have lived together all their lives and supported each other (which reduces the burden on the state) and can't delay inheritance tax.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7372555.stm

HanSpan

Person_one wrote: »

Is this perhaps more significant than you'd like to admit?

Certainly not more than I'd like to admit. He agrees its financially sensible, doesn't mean either of us like the idea and if he still just doesn't want to that's fine with me. I just hadn't really thought about it until I wrote that - I've been thinking of it to make his financial situation easier if I were to die as mine has had such a radical change, and recent sorting of wills etc has put it in the front of my mind again.

Given we've been together over 25 years and neither of us have ever wanted to be married the feeling/belief/view that we'd never get married has been pretty much always accepted and not really discussed. Occasional joshing in both directions - when we've passed a wedding shop maybe, or for some othr daft reason - but never before any even half serious contemplation of it.
Maybe we still just won't and will live with the financial and legal downsides.

It is really usfeul though to talk it out in public wth others with such a variety of views. It's made me realise that part of my own reluctance is that I've been so adamant to all my friends and family for so long that it feels terribly out of character and somehow "wrong" to change my mind now. I'm sure that sounds utterly illogical and it probably is! Its a bit like when I stopped smoking - I was always known as a smoker and not being seen as that person was odd and a bit uncomfortable and made stopping just an ounce more difficult.

There is also the fact I'd feel bad lying to everyone by not teling them, but if I did tell then there would be many (family in particular) would be very hurt that I didn't have a "do" so we got to see each other.

Its all making my head hurt!

HanSpan

theoretica wrote: »

Personally, I would like to see a world where the legal protections (and duties such as lower rates of some benefits for couples than for two single people) were available to any committed pair of people, not just people expected to be sleeping together. It makes me very annoyed when I occasionally read of siblings who have lived together all their lives and supported each other (which reduces the burden on the state) and can't delay inheritance tax.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7372555.stm

I remember neighbours of ours, one of whom was unemployed, being assessed as a "couple" for benefit claims and getting far less than if they had been two same sex (long before civil partnerships or same sex marriage) living together. It was bizarre - someone came in and assessed whether they appeared to share things like pots and pans and yes I think sex was part of the equation. I wonder if its still the same and the state chooses whether to count a couple as "as good as married" when it suits them but not when it doesn't!

I wonder if the French contract, which is definitely more about financial security and not about sex, is also open to people like this - siblings who choose to be financial linked and dependant.

Georgiegirl256

HanSpan wrote: »

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.

Reading the above, it sounds like you would be embarrassed for people to know you are married?

I'm fully supportive for couples who don't want to get married. To me, (legal aspects aside) their relationship is as solid and meaningful as any married couple.

I myself before getting married felt awkward about weddingy things. I've never been a girl who grew up thinking about how her wedding would be. The whole dress thing, the whole lovey dovey aspect just wasn't me. Although in the end up, I did quite enjoy wearing the dress! I don't wear a ring, I still use my maiden names in certain situations, I don't like feeling I have to conform to what is classed as "the norm" just because I am married.

A wedding is what you want it to be, it is what you make it.

duchy

HanSpan wrote: »

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.

Marriage invalidates any wills made before marriage so you have no need to tell anyone (and when they find out you'll be dead so it won't matter to you anyway .)

You've bought into the nonsense of a consumer wedding rather than a marriage. Stop reading magazines

My parents took themselves off to a South London registry office one Monday morning and had the basic civil ceremony.They told the baby sitter they were going to the solicitor - and went off in normal clothes. No-one knew except the sister they asked to be a witness -and she didn't tell a soul afterwards- not even another sister she lived with.. They then went home and continued packing for their house move later the same day. They were gone about an hour in total including travelling to and from the town hall.

A marriage is a civil contract which bestows certain legal rights over property-and inheritance everything else like dresses, religious statements, ushers, bridesmaids, name changes, rings etc are social not legal .

Here is the legal wording required - you need to have no more than this to have a legal marriage https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/births-deaths-and-marriages/marriage-and-civil-partnership/getting-married/your-marriage-vows

Frankly you are making a lot of assumptions about what you THINK you have to do - or who you have to tell


Talking about assumptions - the reason for CPs was to correct the situation with pensions and death benefits for same sex life partners. The gay couples I know who had civil ceremonies have all or are planning to "get the upgrade" to marriage - and none planning to unite legally want a CP now marriage is available. It was simply a stop gap and is considered redundant now by most of the gay community .

Seriously if you want the legal protection - go talk to the registrar- explain you want the plainest of ceremonies with just the legal wording and nothing else - book a ceremony and roll up in jeans and t shirts and just get it done ! You don't even have to bring witnesses - staff or random visitors to the registry office will oblige.

You are making drama where none exists except in your head. You don't need to tell anyone except the government (tax, pensions etc), your employers if you have a pension or death in service benefit (and if you tell them they have to keep it confidential) and it would be a courtesy to tell the solicitor who holds your will that it is now invlid - but there is no obligation to tell your executors of the invalidated by marriage will.

If you want to treat it as a confidential business transaction you can without any fuss or bother.

coolcait

HanSpan wrote: »

....
I wonder if the French contract, which is definitely more about financial security and not about sex, is also open to people like this - siblings who choose to be financial linked and dependant.

It isn't open to siblings, parents and children etc. Although it is open to cousins.

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

Marriage invalidates any wills made before marriage so you have no need to tell anyone (and when they find out you'll be dead so it won't matter to you anyway .)

But the whole will becomes invalid does it not? So what about the provisions if we were both to die at the same time? We still need wills for that and they would have to be new ones wouldn't they?

Frankly you are making a lot of assumptions about what you THINK you have to do - or who you have to tell

No I'm not. I have read the rules about what you have to say and have explained that I do not want to say I take anyone as my "husband", nor do I want to be a "wife" and those aren't words you can exclude from even the plainest of ceremonies in this country.
In terms of who I have to tell - I know I don't *have* to tell anyone except those required legally, but I think I'd feel bad in effect lying to close family and friends and I suspect the need for new wills would let the cat out of the bag with those I'd ahve to involve in that.

HanSpan

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Reading the above, it sounds like you would be embarrassed for people to know you are married?

Yes I guess I would be. It would feel like I'd gone against my own principles, and I would be embarrassed by that.