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

HanSpan

Person_one wrote: »

I can't cope with this!

Read that guardian article again, very very slowly...

You really are very condescending.

I have read it. The cost it talks about is the theoretical increased cost of STATE pensions IF they were to make civil partnerships available to all and IF after that they then changed all the laws so that the laws for state pensions for civil partnerships were changed to be the same as those for married people. In fact if you read the whole thing and some of the references it is clear that the £4m cost to the govt that is suggested is a guess, with an awful lot of assumptions made to get to that guess.
Various parts of the information show the cost could be anything from almost nothing to a far higher number, and most of the estimated costs depend on something happening to change other laws AFTER the civil parnership is changed to include heterosexuals.

Even if you accept their assumption that opening up civil partnerships to different gender couples would lead to a nromalising of the state pension rules for marriage and civil partnerships - nowhere in that article does it explain exactly what the current differences are between state pensions for married couples and civil partners. So to try and find this I then looked at the government website.

The table showing the differences for state pensions between the two says that anyone in a civil partnership will be treated exactly the same as a married man. So from that, as far as I know, the only difference is to women who paid half stamp but get a full pension because of their married status. My mother was in this position but she is long gone so I can't ask her how it worked.

So. I still can't see any way at all that the STATE pension would be any different for me & my SO if we were married vs in a civil partnership (if that was possible).

Idon't know everything, I am more than happy to accept that and have learned all sorts of things from the responses on this thread. But I am really not able to see how our financial situation would be any different if we were to be married as opposed to civil partners (if that were legal)
If you believe there is a difference I'd be really grateful if you would explain it, rather than making snippy remarks about what you seem to perceive as my lack of reading comprehension.

duchy

HanSpan wrote: »

There is already such a thing - Civil Partnerships - so no cost to set it up! Just minor cost to edit the wording so it does not exclude heterosexuals.
If they were to go the other way and get rid of civil partnerships all together I suspect that would cost far more in terms of changes to the law.

.

Trouble is it won't happen -There is no longer the demand for CP's .
The !!!!!exual community don't want them as they regard it as second class marriage . Why do you think so many gay couples with CP's are now getting married . If the CP was enough for them - what would be the point ?

The gay political lobby is strong - and they forced CP into existence without that support there simply isn't the demand for it-. CP was a step towards full equality.....not a stand alone entity.

Politically it makes sense to repeal the act (with provision that existing partnerships stand) as it is simply a reminder of how unenlightened Britain was in matters of gay equality.

EDIT For crying out loud MSE doesn't allow the the word h0mosexual ?????

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

Indeed
I would have more sympathy if there was only one way to be married - for example if marriage ceremonies were only legal if you got married in a church but in Britain you can get married in just about any sort of building you please - church, government office, hotel, barn , historic building, dockyards, football pitches- even Napoleonic caves about a mile from my house

You can have long wordy ceremonies with or without religion with the world and his dog watching or short literally two statement declarations with no-one except the registrar and two (strangers if you want) witnesses present.

Something for everyone.

But there clearly isn't "something for everyone" or there wouldn't be lots of people looking for something that isn't "marriage". Not would there be so many heterosexual couples taking up a non-marriage option where it exists.

If you look at the stats in places like France there are far more heterosexual couples choosing to get legal joined with a modern and different setup than !!!!!exual couples. In France in 2012 a third of heterosexual couples that chose to get legally joined chose to have a PACS (their equivalent of CP) rather than a marriage. A third really isn't a small percentage!

duchy

HanSpan wrote: »

But there clearly isn't "something for everyone" or there wouldn't be lots of people looking for something that isn't "marriage". Not would there be so many heterosexual couples taking up a non-marriage option where it exists.

If you look at the stats in places like France there are far more heterosexual couples choosing to get legal joined with a modern and different setup than !!!!!exual couples. In France in 2012 a third of heterosexual couples that chose to get legally joined chose to have a PACS (their equivalent of CP) rather than a marriage. A third really isn't a small percentage!

Then move to France !!!

Seriously if you feel your rights are so violated by Britain in this matter -why not. Or maybe despite this you prefer to live in Britain ?

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

Trouble is it won't happen -There is no longer the demand for CP's .
The !!!!!exual community don't want them as they regard it as second class marriage . Why do you think so many gay couples with CP's are now getting married . If the CP was enough for them - what would be the point ?

The gay political lobby is strong - and they forced CP into existence without that support there simply isn't the demand for it-. CP was a step towards full equality.....not a stand alone entity.

Politically it makes sense to repeal the act (with provision that existing partnerships stand) as it is simply a reminder of how unenlightened Britain was in matters of gay equality.

EDIT For crying out loud MSE doesn't allow the the word h0mosexual ?????

I believe there's plenty of !!!!!exual couples (I know I've seen figures but am struggling to find them again) where the two options are available that still opt for civil partnerships or the equivalent. Interestingly there are many many !!!!!exuals who have joined the campaign for equal civil partnership rights for heterosexual couples.
Where they are available to heterosexual couples the takup by heterosexuals is not trivial.
All this clearly shows that there are a very significant minority who do not see civil partnerships as second class or less than marriage, just different.

duchy

So when gay marriage became legal - why did CP ceremonies drop by 70% ?

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

Then move to France !!!

Seriously if you feel your rights are so violated by Britain in this matter -why not. Or maybe despite this you prefer to live in Britain ?

You are assuming things I have never said or even intimated.
I never said my rights were being violated. I have said I would like to have the option of a civil partnership available to me, and that I'm not in a miniscule minority or that it is a done deal that civil partnerships will be abolished.

You and at least one other person have said "it will never happen" to the idea that civil partnerships will be extended to heterosexual couples rather than abolished. I have given information that demonstrates that hasn't happened elsewhere, and that what has happened elsewhere means I hope you are wrong.

However I don't know - none of us do for sure until the juducial review and the subsequent legal stuff happens.
I veru much hope they will extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples rather than abolish it.

Would you prefer they abolish it? Or extend it? Or do you not care either way? I'm just curious!

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

So when gay marriage became legal - why did CP ceremonies drop by 70% ?

I guess because 70% of those in a gay couple who choose to get legally joined (I am so with you about why on earth can't I write homo sexual!!!) would rather be married. That still leaves 30% who would choose to be civil partners despite having the option of marriage.

Oddly that seems to reflect the stats I've seen of both same and different gender takup of the options available in various places. Maybe its a reasonably stable percentage that around 30% of couples (regardless of gender or sexual orientation), who wish to be legally joined would prefer something other than marriage and, where they can, they will do that other thing. Maybe I'm not in such a minority afterall!

duchy

But it isn't 30% percent of couples -it's 30% of couples who choose not to marry - which is a much much smaller number.
(I'm not ignoring your question from the other post - just at work and dipping in and out btw)

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

But it isn't 30% percent of couples -it's 30% of couples who choose not to marry - which is a much much smaller number.

?

If there were 100 gay couples that chose to have a CP and then, after there were gay marriages there are 70 fewer that assumes 30 still have a CP - so that is 30% of the total gay couples that get legally bound who choose CP over marriage.

The french stats for 2012 (easiest reasonably recent to find) are 153,670 PACS between heterosexual couples, 245 930 marriages between heterosexual couples. So that's actually 38% of heterosexual couples who get legally bound chose PACS over marriage. Nothing to do with percentages of couples who choose not to get married as a whole - there must be loads and loads of them!