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

onlyroz

HanSpan wrote: »

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.

I do understand your feelings, but you seem to be attaching a lot of weight to what other people choose to do of their own free will. I don't really see how it makes any difference to your own marriage if other women choose to wear a ring or a white dress, or be led up the aisle by their father. While these things are still popular, I cannot imagine that anybody would remotely care if you choose to not do them. I don't wear a wedding ring, for example, and nobody else cares.

And in-fact, by shunning these archaic traditions in your own wedding you would be leading by example and might possibly change the attitudes of those very people with whom you disagree.

There are a lot of people who do things just because that's the way they have always been done, and they might not really have considered that there is an alternative. For example, I changed my surname upon marriage and didn't give it a second thought - however, now more and more women are not doing this, I have realised that perhaps I made the wrong decision.

rpc

HanSpan wrote: »

I found it pretty easy to find the mandatory words for the UK

There are no standard UK words - E&W has different requirements to Scotland.

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.

I am fairly sure that this is not required in Scotland for either the civil ceremony or a humanist wedding. Can you provide a citation for this requirement in a Scots civil/humanist wedding?

It may be required for a religious wedding, I don't know.

HanSpan

onlyroz wrote: »

I do understand your feelings, but you seem to be attaching a lot of weight to what other people choose to do of their own free will. I don't really see how it makes any difference to your own marriage if other women choose to wear a ring or a white dress, or be led up the aisle by their father. While these things are still popular, I cannot imagine that anybody would remotely care if you choose to not do them. I don't wear a wedding ring, for example, and nobody else cares.

And in-fact, by shunning these archaic traditions in your own wedding you would be leading by example and might possibly change the attitudes of those very people with whom you disagree.

There are a lot of people who do things just because that's the way they have always been done, and they might not really have considered that there is an alternative. For example, I changed my surname upon marriage and didn't give it a second thought - however, now more and more women are not doing this, I have realised that perhaps I made the wrong decision.

Thank you. I like your middle paragraph very much.
I still don't like the idea but that definitely goes on the "makes me more comfortable about at least considering it" side of the equation.

HanSpan

rpc wrote: »

There are no standard UK words - E&W has different requirements to Scotland.

There are mandatory words - two things are required by law - although there are various forms from traditional to modern. the modern version of the two things is:

"I declare that I know of no legal reason why I (your name) may not be joined in marriage to (your partner's name)."

and

"I (your full name), take you (your partner's full name) to be my wedded wife/husband."

I am fairly sure that this is not required in Scotland for either the civil ceremony or a humanist wedding. Can you provide a citation for this requirement in a Scots civil/humanist wedding?

It may be required for a religious wedding, I don't know.

But it looks like Scotland does indeed have no legally specified words if the service is not religious. Thanks for that information - I thought the UK rules applied in Scotland too.
If we decide to do it and Louisiana/Texas is a no go then Scotland will likely be the place.

gingercordial

HanSpan wrote: »

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.

I would say that the tradition of weddings in the USA is pretty much the same as here (patriarchal, white weddings, change of name, gay marriage allowed only recently if at all) so I am not sure why it is better to buy into their tradition than ours, but to answer your question you would have to check the legislation of each state. Each one publishes its complete law online but they all have different formats, search functions etc. It's tedious but totally possible to find.

For example, Louisiana's requirements for marriage include "The free consent of the parties to take each other as husband and wife, expressed at the ceremony." So if you are determined not to say those two words, Louisiana is not for you.

https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/law.aspx?d=111019

It might be easier if you were to decide on a handful of cities that you might consider visiting for your wedding, and then contacting a court house in each and asking the question about the exact wording required. I'm sure they'd be happy to help.

duchy

Actually the attitude in many American states to gay marriage is still very anti .

Still Civil partnership will almost certainly be taken off the statute altogether rather than extended so the OP still won't be able to have it so ultimately they need to either

1 Stop worrying about what other people may possibly think or say and get on with it and get married and have legal protection

2 Shell out several thousand to artificially create the same protection via a solicitor

3 Do nothing and remain unprotected

For most people it would be a no brainer

POPPYOSCAR

duchy wrote: »

Actually the attitude in many American states to gay marriage is still very anti .

Still Civil partnership will almost certainly be taken off the statute altogether rather than extended so the OP still won't be able to have it so ultimately they need to either

1 Stop worrying about what other people may possibly think or say and get on with it and get married and have legal protection

2 Shell out several thousand to artificially create the same protection via a solicitor

3 Do nothing and remain unprotected

For most people it would be a no brainer

Depending on circumstances even shelling out thousands to a solicitor cannot give you the same as a marriage certificate.


The first thing our solicitor and accountant advised us was to get married.

HanSpan

gingercordial wrote: »

I would say that the tradition of weddings in the USA is pretty much the same as here (patriarchal, white weddings, change of name, gay marriage allowed only recently if at all) so I am not sure why it is better to buy into their tradition than ours, but to answer your question you would have to check the legislation of each state. Each one publishes its complete law online but they all have different formats, search functions etc. It's tedious but totally possible to find.

For example, Louisiana's requirements for marriage include "The free consent of the parties to take each other as husband and wife, expressed at the ceremony." So if you are determined not to say those two words, Louisiana is not for you.

https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/law.aspx?d=111019

It might be easier if you were to decide on a handful of cities that you might consider visiting for your wedding, and then contacting a court house in each and asking the question about the exact wording required. I'm sure they'd be happy to help.

Thanks for the link, and the suggestion. I've tried seraching for those sort of specifics but haven't got anywhere so I will try court houses as that might well be the most sensible option!

rpc

HanSpan wrote: »

I thought the UK rules applied in Scotland too.

Oh !!!!!! there are no UK rules.

There is a set of rules for marriages under English Law. There is a set of rules for marriages under Scots Law. They are different because the UK covers three legal jurisdictions.

There are a number of differences which are mostly administrative but also cover things like locations and the legality of a humanist ceremony as a third option to civil and religious. It also covers vows. Our registry office insisted on a few lines being mandatory, a few lines being "must have one of these choices" and the rest being completely optional.

As an aside, my sister had a humanist ceremony as the venue did not meet the H&S requirements for a registrar to attend so it had to be humanist or religious.

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

Actually the attitude in many American states to gay marriage is still very anti .

We are not gay - I'm female he is male. I abhor the attitude of many towards gays (and indeed anyone else that feels or believes or lives differently from them), and that might affect how I feel about getting married in any particular state, but I do want to know the laws and rules so I can at least consider the options.

Still Civil partnership will almost certainly be taken off the statute altogether rather than extended so the OP still won't be able to have it so ultimately they need to either

We will have to wait and see at the end of the month. I hope you are wrong. They will have to do something I think, and I wonder how they can forcibly make those that already have a civil partnership change it to a marriage if they don't want to change. Why would the govt bother with that which would be far more hassle than just changing a few words on the civil partnership statute? Particularly when so many other countries in Europe have both for everybody?

1 Stop worrying about what other people may possibly think or say and get on with it and get married and have legal protection

I'm not worriying about what other people think. I'm pretty sure I have made clear that it is my feelings/beliefs/principles, rather than anyone else's that concern me.

2 Shell out several thousand to artificially create the same protection via a solicitor

Wills - free as I already had a will pack and it was simple.
Power of attorney total of £440 for both financial and medical for both of us (£110 each) - easy to do online.
Tax & pension things cannot be changed regardless of what I pay solicitors.

3 Do nothing and remain unprotected

We are not "unprotected" it is just that not being married means he would probably have to pay inheritance tax if I were to die first, and that whilst I am not working much we cannot benefit from me transferring some of my allowance to him and possibly (I haven't yet worked this out) that the survivor would benefit in terms of state pensions if we were married and one of us dies before the other.

For most people it would be a no brainer

If I were "most people" I don't suppose I would have come here looking for advice about what the ins and outs are in other places, trying to find if there's a way I could reconcile my feelings with the practicalities I'd like to achieve. I know I am in the minority, I have always accepted that - about this subject and several others! I'm not looking to change anyone else's views, nor for anyone else to change mine - I'm just looking for information about the rules/laws and the options that are open to me.