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

coolcait

HanSpan wrote: »

....

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.

I thought you'd ruled Scotland out earlier on in the thread, so didn't bother following up with the idea of Scotland as an option.


Here's a link to the National Records of Scotland site:


http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/registration/getting-married-in-scotland/marriage-ceremonies-in-scotland


There are certain statutory declarations you have to make, whether you get married in England, Wales, Scotland - or probably most places in the world.


That makes absolute sense because you are entering into a legal contract with each other. You have to state what that contract is - clearly and unequivocally.


In Scotland, you can state that you are getting married to each other (or something along those lines) as well as, or instead of, taking the other person as your husband or wife. The registrar must also declare you to be man and wife at the end of the ceremony.


To emphasise the point that these are legal declarations, there are similar statutory declarations for same sex marriages.

HanSpan

rpc wrote: »

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's really no need to be unpleasant.

The first place I found the mandatory wording led me to believe it was mandatory for the UK as a whole. I have now discovered (after some helpful comments from others) that it actually relates to England and (I think) Wales, but not Scotland. I don't know about NI as I haven't gone looking.

There are some laws that are the same and some that are different in England and/or Scotland and/or Wales and/or NI. I have accepted I made a mistake in thinking this particular law related to Scotland as well as England and Wales, but I an aware that I don't know everything about all the laws of this country, which is why I came looking for help!

lazer

creased-leach wrote: »

It's about everything that I, my partner, and many many other people associate with that title. Its a principle. The majority of my LGBT friends have also signed that petition; they believe that we should be given the choice too, and don't feel that it any way belittles the struggle they've had.

In a totally unscientific round up of all the hetero weddings I've attended/encountered/stumbled upon over the last five years;

Most Women changed their surname
"". Brides wore white
"". Women were walked down an 'aisle' by their father/father figure

An individual wedding can be made less so; but the whole institution is still tightly bound with traditions I'm not comfortable with.
Those of you who can disassociate it; I'm genuinely happy for you. I, and many others, can't.

So say 100 people got married this month, and of them 50% kept their own surname, 50% changed their surname.


No if you had also got married this month only 49% of people would have changed their names.


The institution will remain the same unless people actually get married differently.


Personally, I had no problem changing my surname, wanted my family to have the same surname so therefore changed my name (yes - my husband could have changed his, but we chose to change mine).


I also liked my Dad walking me down the aisle, I was always a Daddy's girl so it seemed right.


Weddings are you what you want them to be.


Although I do think Civil Partnerships should be available for opposite sex couples, for as long as they remain available for same sex couples, otherwise it is still inequality.

coolcait

HanSpan wrote: »

...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? ....

I doubt very much that the outcome of the review would mean that those who already have a civil partnership would be forced to change it to marriage.


Far more likely that there will be new/amended legislation which confirms that all civil partnerships contracted between [date] and [date], under the relevant Civil Partnership legislation, remain valid.


The Civil Partnership legislation was written to give same sex couples the opportunity to have similar legal rights to those obtained through marriage.


Same sex couples now have the right to get married, so that does rather make the original legislation obsolete. I'm not sure how much tinkering would be required to change it into legislation to cover the points you are looking for. I suspect that it would be a lot more than "just changing a few words".


The fact remains that all couples in the UK have the right to enter into a civil contract which sets out certain legal rights in respect of their finances, property etc.


That contract is called 'marriage'. For the purposes of the contract, the two parties involved are referred to by the terms 'wife' or 'husband'. This is true whether the marriage is contracted by a man and a woman; by a woman and a woman; or by a man and a man.

coolcait

HanSpan wrote: »

There's really no need to be unpleasant.

The first place I found the mandatory wording led me to believe it was mandatory for the UK as a whole. I have now discovered (after some helpful comments from others) that it actually relates to England and (I think) Wales, but not Scotland. I don't know about NI as I haven't gone looking.

There are some laws that are the same and some that are different in England and/or Scotland and/or Wales and/or NI. I have accepted I made a mistake in thinking this particular law related to Scotland as well as England and Wales, but I an aware that I don't know everything about all the laws of this country, which is why I came looking for help!

Post 2 on this thread pointed you in the direction of Scotland.


Post 5 on this thread told you about the wording used for weddings in Scotland.


You ruled Scotland out shortly after that - citing relatives.


So I'm slightly baffled that, in post 133, you're acting as if you've only just heard that the rules (laws) are different in Scotland.

POPPYOSCAR

lazer wrote: »

So say 100 people got married this month, and of them 50% kept their own surname, 50% changed their surname.


No if you had also got married this month only 49% of people would have changed their names.


The institution will remain the same unless people actually get married differently.


Personally, I had no problem changing my surname, wanted my family to have the same surname so therefore changed my name (yes - my husband could have changed his, but we chose to change mine).


I also liked my Dad walking me down the aisle, I was always a Daddy's girl so it seemed right.


Weddings are you what you want them to be.


Although I do think Civil Partnerships should be available for opposite sex couples, for as long as they remain available for same sex couples, otherwise it is still inequality.

I would go further and say they should be available to anyone who wants to create a legal framework between them.


As it stands two sisters for example could live together for years and if one dies have to sell their home because of inheritance tax. Why should a married couple not face that problem?

HanSpan

coolcait wrote: »

Post 2 on this thread pointed you in the direction of Scotland.


Post 5 on this thread told you about the wording used for weddings in Scotland.


You ruled Scotland out shortly after that - citing relatives.


So I'm slightly baffled that, in post 133, you're acting as if you've only just heard that the rules (laws) are different in Scotland.

As far as I remember neither of those posts explained that the mandatory wording in the ceremony is different, only that what is allowable on the certificate is different. If I am mistaken I can only apologise. I haven't deliberately misunderstood but there have been alot of people saying alot of different things and I am still just trying to work out all the options.

I still don't want to be "married" anywhere.
If I were to overcome my feelings and do it for practical purposes I still worry that it would be hard to keep secret..
If I were to do it and not keep it secret I worry how those I care about would feel (particularly my family, and particularly those in Scotland if I did it there).

POPPYOSCAR

HanSpan wrote: »

As far as I remember neither of those posts explained that the mandatory wording in the ceremony is different, only that what is allowable on the certificate is different. If I am mistaken I can only apologise. I haven't deliberately misunderstood but there have been alot of people saying alot of different things and I am still just trying to work out all the options.

I still don't want to be "married" anywhere.
If I were to overcome my feelings and do it for practical purposes I still worry that it would be hard to keep secret..
If I were to do it and not keep it secret I worry how those I care about would feel (particularly my family, and particularly those in Scotland if I did it there).

To be honest with you, we find it really easy to keep it a secret because it does not feel like it even happened!


I totally get that you do not want to be married it took many years for me to finally pluck up the courage to do it. In fact it took the untimely deaths of both my niece and nephew in the space of 6 months of each other to focus my mind on what I had to do and had been putting off for so long.


I do not regret it, I do not feel married but I do have the peace of mind that the piece of paper has given.

HanSpan

coolcait wrote: »

I thought you'd ruled Scotland out earlier on in the thread, so didn't bother following up with the idea of Scotland as an option.

Sorry if you feel I mislead you, that was not my intention.

I really don't want to be "married" and nor does my SO.
I am investigating options, and one of them is most certainly to accept the financial/legal disadvantages of continuing to live together with no legal ties.

If we were to decide to marry in the UK it is becoming increasingly clear that Scotland is the best option in terms of legal requirements, but it is not the best option in terms of family - we have lots of family and friends in Scotland and there are many who would feel very unhappy if we were to marry in Scotland and not tell them or invite them.

None the less, if it is the best option for marriage we may still do it. Or not. We haven't decided!

duchy

I think in your shoes my mindset would be that I wasn't having a wedding but simply completing a businesslike ceremony for tax reasons. With that logic there really isn't anything to tell family either advance or even after the event.

Of course there's no drama to be milked if you take that attitude.

A marriage ceremony is all about the legal
A wedding is about the social expectations


Just because some people have used marriage to "sell" their daughters to unite farms or to commit legal rape doesn't mean all marriages are inherently wrong anymore than owning a kitchen knife is wrong because murders have been committed using one.
It's the intent that counts.