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

HanSpan

ecgirl07 wrote: »

I think you are putting too juch on what other people think. I was going to suggest http://www.weeweddings.co.uk go away for the weekend have a humanist ceremony on the beach in your jeans if you want. (Ignore the wedding side and see the legal side)

I hope civil partnerships come in for everyone and you and your oh find something that works for you.

I was just surprised that no-one had said they would be offended at people like us "cheapening" marriage if we were to do it. It really wouldn't affect my decision - its all the things I said earlier about how I feel.

Thanks for the link though. If there still isn't another option when we get to pension age I suspect we might think again - and that looks rather good. Certainly a lovely place and I arranged a humanist ceremony for my father's funeral and it was perfect so that too is something I'd not thought of.

Thanks.

8ofspades

HanSpan wrote: »

Theoretically we could have a legal thing in Scotland then a party in England, but I can't imagine we would ever arrange any sort of party to celebrate something we aren't keen on in the first place!

I think I knew my question would have a strong reaction from some people, but even though I subconsciously expected some of it I am surprised by the vehemence that so many express about my views.

I've been to a lovely wedding, very recently, of a couple that are much younger than we are but still chose to incorporate many traditions I find uncomfortable - white dress, father to walk her down the aisle, a ceremony that ended with giving the newly wed man permission to kiss the newly wed woman, speeches from the men (not that I'd ever personally envy them that bit!), her changing her surname and so on.

All of that is their choice, I enjoyed the day and am really pleased they are happy. I didn't question their choices (and wouldn't unless asked) but that doesn't stop me privately wondering how any modern young woman can aquiesce to all that. I couldn't ever, and I can't help the fact that I feel that "getting married" is tacitly approving of it all.

I did think it strange, but it seemed like appeasing family/friends was something you might want to do and at least a celebration without the ceremony could be what you wanted it to be, if anything.

I don't know why I'm surprised really, I think the suggestion you get CBT was perhaps most surprising.

cavegrrl

8ofspades wrote: »

I did think it strange, but it seemed like appeasing family/friends was something you might want to do and at least a celebration without the ceremony could be what you wanted it to be, if anything.

I don't know why I'm surprised really, I think the suggestion you get CBT was perhaps most surprising.

Sorry that was me, tablet logged me in to an old account

duchy

HanSpan wrote: »

I think I would actually expect people who believe in marriage to be more offended if we did choose to do it, and do it in such a flippant way with the knowledge we really don't believe in it. I would expect that many would feel we were "cheapening" marriage.

.

You've written an awful lot about what you think others will think - and onestly I think that's where you are getting confused.

In this day and age people actually don't care if a couple are legally married or not . I say that having already stated on this thread that I am getting married but I'm not doing it for anyone else -it's something my partner and i want and feel it also benefits us legally as well. I don't care if anyone thinks we should or shouldn't do it. I'm a grown up I don't need the approval of others.

I think you are seeing marriage as something society expects ......and I don't think that is true anymore. When I first got married in 1980 I think had we not married it would have been unusual enough to be commented on but no more than that but most people - Today - no-one cares - and people tend to get married either because it is something they as a couple want or need or because they want to make a social statement with all the bells and whistles.

I see marriage as optional - some people like me want it and feel making a lifetime commitment is important -others don't want to - but no-one is going to disapprove of you for your choice (well not unless they are very religious ). In some ways the nicest thing you could do for your partner is to marry him to ensure if you die he will get your pension. The fact you are doing it to protect his financial interest is probably a greater expression of your love than anything else considering how ambivalent you feel about marriage .

For me this all boils down to ........

If there was one thing that you could do that would take half an hour of your time and other than that time spent would change nothing else except improve your partner's situation if you were to die - would you do it ?

For me I would as I'd feel protecting my loved ones comes first -

I do understand that if you've always being quite vocal to others about how you disapprove of marriage that some of this might be about losing face because it might seem hypocritical and that's why you are so bothered about what others will think or say but the reality is you are using marriage in its original form as a legal contract as it was meant before it got hijacked by the Victorians with their hearts and floers attitude.

I don't think that makes if flippant or disrespectful to those who marry for other reasons - There are lots of reasons people choose marriage not just one.

TBagpuss

HanSpan wrote: »

I've been to a lovely wedding, very recently, of a couple that are much younger than we are but still chose to incorporate many traditions I find uncomfortable - white dress, father to walk her down the aisle, a ceremony that ended with giving the newly wed man permission to kiss the newly wed woman, speeches from the men (not that I'd ever personally envy them that bit!), her changing her surname and so on.

All of that is their choice, I enjoyed the day and am really pleased they are happy. I didn't question their choices (and wouldn't unless asked) but that doesn't stop me privately wondering how any modern young woman can aquiesce to all that. I couldn't ever, and I can't help the fact that I feel that "getting married" is tacitly approving of it all.

You don';t need to do any of that.
I went to a lovely wedding some years ago (my aunt and uncle) and they didn't do any f those things. The bride wore a beautiful green linen trouser suit, the registrar (as faras I can recall) didn't say anything to either of them about kissing the other, there were no formal speeches although the bride did make some fairly imformal remarks (mostly just welcoming eveyone and inviting them to get stuck into the food!) She and the children are still known by her surname, he is known by his.

They did decide to have a party to celebrate but that was a personal choice.

I think with regard to the wording of the ceremonym, if you get maried in England you can speak to the registrar first and be clear about anything you do or do not want included.

There are quite a fewp places where you can marry abroad where both paretns details appear on the marriage certificate, but you would, of course, ned to check whether the wording of ceremonies etc waas compatible with what you want.

I think in your position I would probably go for a registry office wedding, no guests (you do need witnesses, but you can ask people out of the waiting room / off the street if you don't want to invite anyone). You don't need to tell people (other than officials where it is relevant) unless you want to.

The registry office ceremony can be very short - many people like to add bits but they are not necessary and you can tell the registrar what you want /don't want.

One minor point - if you are pimarily thinking about marrying in order to secure pension or other benefits, you may find it keeps things simplr if you do it in the UK - I have found that some organisations have trouble with foroegn marriage certificates as they don't 'fit' the system neatly, and whuile you can get past thoe problems it can slow things down and make them more stressful, which if the context where you are most likely to need it is when your patner is ill or has died might add to the stress!

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

If there was one thing that you could do that would take half an hour of your time and other than that time spent would change nothing else except improve your partner's situation if you were to die - would you do it ?

But the point is it WOULD change something else. It would mean I was married, and that would very much affect how I feel. It would also very much affect how he feels. I guess its taken all this talk back and forth to remind me just how strongly anti we both feel.

The fact I have commented on other people's feelings is just surprise and curiosity about the responses - both those I've had and those I have not had - it doesn't mean that others' feelings are anything to do with the basis for my own decisions.

Its all a moot point anyway as SO really doesn't want to do it - even to improve his financial future if I were to die first - so its not going to happen. It does nothing really for me financially. In fact if I don't marry I can claim back most of the 1.5% I had to pay towards a widow/widowers pension for 20 odd years so I will likely be better off in 10 years if I remain unmarried!

If the difference between doing it or not was huge, and not doing it would leave him financially up !!!! creek if I were to die first, I'd probably try to persuade him - but the reality is neither one of us will starve if the other dies first.

duchy

cavegrrl wrote: »

Wow, I clicked on this post because I have similar feelings about marriage and was interested in what there was.. I find myself shocked at some of the comments.

I hope you find a solution which suits you!

If you were interested in going to Scotland, could you do it and then hold a mock-ceremony in England for family and friends?

I think this post perhaps shows why there is so much confusion as this poster clearly understood the OP to want something entirely different to how I've understood her -with the suggestion of a mock ceremony (which to me really would be offensive)

I've never attended a Civil Partnership but my understanding is the declaration is pretty much the same as the basic registry office statutory minimum (with optional bolt on bits if required) and like marriage the declaration must be made in front of a registrar and witnesses. I really see little difference between this and a basic registry office wedding except the contractees are referred to as partners rather than as husband and wife (which are legal terms).
I know gay couples who once they had a CP refer to their partner as their husband or wife -even though legally they are not-Again it's social convention and akin to a couple who choose to not marry but one or other change their surname by deed poll so their children have the same surname as both parents.

I really don't think it matters anymore - I remember back in the seventies my parents taking the mickey out of my next door neighbours because they had sent their 15 year old son down to check the electoral roll to check to see if the neighbours on the other side were married or living together. (The son told us -he thought his parents were weird too). My take was they were nuts - it ddn't impact on them in any shape or form and was none of their business and they had some kind of weird fifties mindset going on but then the kick to the tale was the same son was gay -and his parents were so mortified they never told anyone even when he and his partner had lived together for at least ten years.

My parents didn't marry for years themselves due to religious differences (they didn't care but both families did) and one day just went and got it done -it didn't make them any more or less committed to each other - they already knew it was for life but it gave my Mum legal protection and buying a new house brought into focus they needed legal protection (family and friends already assumed they were married so they told no-one not even us kids). It was simply a legal declaration they made in a registry office. That was in 1967 - and I guess a very similar situation to the OP's situation all these decades later . Probably explains why my attitude to the OP is -If going to a registry office and makeing a declaration brings you a benefit (or safety net) then it is simply that - so do it , stick the certificate in a drawer and carry on as before.

Ultimately none of us know what the future will bring in terms of lifespan and financial security tough so anything that protects the future is worth considering from a pragmatic viewpoint.

mjdh1957

I had a civil partnership in 2008 with my now deceased partner. And everyone we knew referred to us as being married. We never referred to each other as 'husbands' though, and continued to use the word 'partner'.

We did apply to upgrade to full legal marriage but he passed away just before the appointed date.

So you could just have a civil marriage and continue to keep your separate names and refer to each other as partners.

duchy

Ultimately we are going nowhere
The OP can only view marriage as a social state and can't seperate the Brides magazine viewpoint of marriage to the legal contract in her head.

She wants the legal protection marriage bestows without a marriage so legally what she wants simply isn't available.

Civil partnerships are likely to be discontinued for new applicants rather than extended now gay marriage exists legally so nothing is going to change for her so she's right she can't have what she wants with her current mindset.

As the great philosopher Jaggar once said "You can't always get what you want"

motherofstudents

You can't have your cake and eat it. You want the benefits of a legal contract without entering into it. I think if you are so against marriage, don't get married. You would be going against your long held principles.

Would the financial aspects of being married compensate for how bad you would feel ? You mentioned tax benefits as you are not working but at most, that is £18 a month....inheritance tax and pensions, are they worth betraying your principles for ? From what you have said I don't think so.

You obviously feel strongly that you don't want to be married so I think you should stick to your beliefs.