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

*max*

2

HanSpan wrote: »

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

Goodness, why?? You're a tiny, tiny little spec in the universe, your getting married or not doesn't matter at all. Why do you care about being judged for something people have been doing for centuries (millenia?)? Because it would "make you look like a hypocrit"?
Who cares?? It really does not matter what you do. Nobody cares, it affects noone.

The only person you have to please is yourself. Do what YOU want!

Homeownertobe

HanSpan wrote: »

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?

I think that poster is referring to private/company pensions, which allow discrimination against gay people in many cases.

For example, if a man has worked for an employer for 50 years and built up a significant pension pot but retired before marriage equality was legalised, then his wife would be able to claim that pension and benefit from any death benefits, whereas his husband would not be able to unless the company expressly permitted it. There is no legal recourse to this. In many cases pensions are limited to the time frame built up so only money paid in after marriage equality become the law can be shared by a same sex spouse, but all the money can be shared by an opposite sex spouse.

duchy

HanSpan wrote: »

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?

Depends if you were leaving everything to your spouse or not. In most cases they'd inherit everything so if that wasn't what you wanted then you would just make new wills (a later will automatically invalidates an earlier one ) If someone has already agreed to be the executor for you - they don't actually need to know you've made a new will as they will still be doing the same thing.





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.

Oh for goodness sake ....You want to claim the legal benefits of husband and wife therefore you need to declare yourselves as such ONCE -in front of a registrar and two strangers -Husband and Wife are not just social terms but they also have legal meaning so if you want marriage you have to use the words to declare yourselves wanting the protection in law that the status of marriage invokes.
If you cannot understand that thn you are probably too immature to understand so it's probably better to spend several thousand getting a solicitor to artificially create the same legal protection for you both rather than a couple of hundred on a five minute ceremony because uttering the words husband and wife are so abhorrent to you !!!

I'm not sure why you feel the need to lie to family and friends - They might think you are a bit of a hypocrite if you've spent years as a right on left wing feminist slagging off people who choose the oppression of the chains of marriage or they may not give it any more thought other than you've finally grown up and realized marriage offers you legal protection.
If you see it as purely a business transaction then unless you usually tell your friends and family about every legal transaction you make then no-one is going to be too surprised if you don't think it's worth mentioning.
You are trying to create drama where none exists. Odds are no one will bat an eye if you mention you went and made it legal in a matter of a fact way some time after the event . If it isn't important to you -why would it be important to them ?

People go off and get married and tell their friends and family afterwards all the time. It's hardly unusual nowadays. Some because like you they are a bit embarassed about it, some because they don't want a fuss or see it as just about the two of them , or have warring parents or cost issues, religious differences and on and on........

"I thought you didn't believe in marriage"
"We don't but it was cheaper to get married than get the same protection with a solicitor but I'm not taking his name or wearing a ring so it's business as usual <smile>"

Honestly - is that really something you couldn't say to your friends and family ?

I'm not having anyone at my wedding - not because I don't believe in marriage -I've been married before and I do believe it makes a difference- but I feel it's something between the two of us and I certainly don't want a lot of fuss or expense plus I don't want a lot of legal messing about when one or other of us dies -and I'm certainly not paying a solicitor to draw up paperwork when I can go abroad have a lovely holiday and get the same legal protection with a short ceremony whilst we are away for a lot less money. Maybe that's what you should do.......you can do a drive through wedding in Las Vegas for a couple of hundred dollars - you don't even need to get out of the car You know the saying "What happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas" !!!!

Gloomendoom

^^^^^^ Well said.

onlyroz

HanSpan wrote: »

I'm afraid that is still not a good analogy. How someone behaves is not at all the same as the traditions and beliefs surrounding something.

You don't like my analogies? How about:

"I would like to go out to vote, but voting has all sorts of historical baggage associated with it - voting used to be unequal and unfair because women and minorities were prevented from voting. Therefore, I refuse to go out and vote unless they change the name to something else".

"I would like to ride on a bus, but the bus transport system has all sorts of historical baggage associated with it, from when they used to prevent racial minorities from travelling alongside the whites. Therefore, I refuse to travel on a bus unless they change the name to something else".

I think you just need to accept that institutions change, and just because they were once unequal and unfair doesn't mean that they still are.

pollypenny

Storm in a tea cup, again.

Just go to the registrar's office, in ordinary clothes and do the minimum to protect your finances, which is what you want. You keep your maiden name, you don't have to wear a ring or change your life.

Mojisola

duchy wrote: »

People go off and get married and tell their friends and family afterwards all the time. It's hardly unusual nowadays. Some because like you they are a bit embarassed about it, some because they don't want a fuss or see it as just about the two of them , or have warring parents or cost issues, religious differences and on and on........

"I thought you didn't believe in marriage"
"We don't but it was cheaper to get married than get the same protection with a solicitor but I'm not taking his name or wearing a ring so it's business as usual <smile>"

Honestly - is that really something you couldn't say to your friends and family?

I have a cousin who did this - the couple had been together for years and always said that they weren't going to get married. He was coming up to retirement and realised that he couldn't nominate his partner to receive his pension.

They invited a small group to the 'wedding' by saying "You know we didn't plan to get married but it makes financial sense to do so". No-one accused them of being hypocrites or made them feel awkward about their change of mind.

Their lives didn't change after that one day except that they can now benefit from pension rules and inheritance tax transfers, etc.

HanSpan

Just because others don't understand how I feel about getting married doesn't mean they have to be condescending or unpleasant. My feelings and principles are mine, and I am just as entitled to them as you all are to yours. The fact you disagree or don't understand does not make me immature or any of the other derogatory terms that people have used.

I have never wanted to be married, I still don't. I don't want to be a "wife" or have a ""husband" or have to tick the "married" box on forms or anything else. I am however aware that it would be beneficial for my SOs financial future now so I am investigating if there is a way I could do it that I could feel OK with. It is how I would feel about going against my principles that bothers me - not how others would feel. My only concern about others is that my family would be hurt if I got married without telling and inviting them - they *would care* - very much.

When I started this post I was unaware the juduciary review over civil partnerships for heterosexual couples was so soon. Now I know it is I will wait for that before deciding what to do.

If that does not go the way I hope I will continue to look into options, in particular what a "drive thru" type wedding - but in Texas or Louisiana or neighbouring states might look like and what I would have to actually say to be legally married that way. I would be very grateful if anyone could give me the answer to that, or tell me where I might find it.

HanSpan

onlyroz wrote: »

You don't like my analogies? How about:

"I would like to go out to vote, but voting has all sorts of historical baggage associated with it - voting used to be unequal and unfair because women and minorities were prevented from voting. Therefore, I refuse to go out and vote unless they change the name to something else".

"I would like to ride on a bus, but the bus transport system has all sorts of historical baggage associated with it, from when they used to prevent racial minorities from travelling alongside the whites. Therefore, I refuse to travel on a bus unless they change the name to something else".

I think you just need to accept that institutions change, and just because they were once unequal and unfair doesn't mean that they still are.

But there's nowhere that voting or riding busses in this country now appears at all different for those of different genders or ethnicities. Its not like on some bus routes all the whites only ever sit at the front and all other ethnicities at the back, or that in some polling stations all the women vote in a different pink cubicle.
Those things once had discriminatory practices but they are not at all reflected in the current practice of voting or riding busses, they have totally changed.
Although legally weddings have changed, the form and practice really haven't - many many (all that I have been to) still have some of those traditions.

I haven't given my own analogy becuase I really can't think of one. I can't think of any other thing that was once discriminatory against a particular group, that is legally no longer so, but where the participants still voluntarily choose to continue the traditions and practices that signified the different status of the participants.

Its really not a good one but the closest I can think of is a job I once applied for. The job seemed perfect, the location great and I was really keen. I went for an interview and the lady from Personnel (this was a long time ago) explained that they couldn't insist legally, but they did expect women to wear skirts. I was shocked and to be honest rather horrified. I couldn't understand how other women could choose to work for a company with those sorts of views, but then (as now) I believed that everyone has a right to make their own choices. I chose not to work for them and to have nothing to do with them again.

HanSpan

Homeownertobe wrote: »

I think that poster is referring to private/company pensions, which allow discrimination against gay people in many cases.

For example, if a man has worked for an employer for 50 years and built up a significant pension pot but retired before marriage equality was legalised, then his wife would be able to claim that pension and benefit from any death benefits, whereas his husband would not be able to unless the company expressly permitted it. There is no legal recourse to this. In many cases pensions are limited to the time frame built up so only money paid in after marriage equality become the law can be shared by a same sex spouse, but all the money can be shared by an opposite sex spouse.

That was what I thought they were talking about but the link they gave, in the post I was answering, was to an article about the cost to the government of making state pension the same for both civil partnerships and marriages.

Mind you the same document appears to show pretty much the same thing for other pensions as far as I can see. Unless it has errors in it (which is always possible) it appears to show that the rules are the same for those in civil partnerships as for a married man - even in occupational pensions.

Survivor benefits – occupational pension schemes
Marriage:
Where an occupational pension scheme provides discretionary survivor benefits, schemes are permitted to only take into account the rights accrued from the date the Civil Partnership Act came into force (5 December 2005).
Where an occupational scheme is contracted out[1], schemes are required to pay surviving spouses of either gender half of the Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) accrued based on the member’s accruals back to April 1988.

Civil Partnership
Where an occupational pension scheme provides survivor benefits, schemes are permitted toonly take into account the rights accrued from the date the Civil Partnership Act came into force (5 December 2005).
Where an occupational scheme is contracted out[1], schemes are required to pay surviving civil partners of either gender half of the Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) accrued based on the member’s accruals back to April. 1988.