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

creased-leach

Person_one wrote: »

I can't see any reason why we need two names for the same thing.

It would make more sense to iron out the final few remaining (minor) problems with marriage and just get rid of CPs.

Then we can just look back on them as a bad memory of a time when we as a country couldn't quite bring ourselves to treat same sex couples equally.

In myideal world, there would be a shake up of the system that left us with one legally binding solution for all. It would have no religious trappings or patriarchal tradition attached to it.
...but then I'm an atheist feminist, so I would say that.

pigpen

So you want the LEGAL aspects of marriage without having to state that you agree to the LEGAL terms... ???

Exactly how could that possibly work?

By the very nature of the situation/ceremony you are agreeing whether you say the words or not.. Wherever it is held.. because the legalities provided are the same.

Civil partnerships is an insult to same-sex couples and obsolete now they can get married just the same as heterosexual couples.. as it absolutely should be.. you want your relationship categorised as a second class status because you don't want to say the things you are actually wanting the ceremony to provide??


In my registry office wedding I said I didn't know of any legal reason I couldn't get married and that was all.. I didn't vow or promise anything. I did have my dads details on my certificate because I didn't know I could choose to not have it on... if I remarried I wouldn't have his details on.

Mojisola

Person_one wrote: »

I can't see any reason why we need two names for the same thing.

It would make more sense to iron out the final few remaining (minor) problems with marriage and just get rid of CPs.

creased-leach wrote: »

It would have no religious trappings or patriarchal tradition attached to it.
...but then I'm an atheist feminist, so I would say that.

If you have just the legal ceremony in an RO, you're not allowed any religious content so that's already in place.

All it needs is to have both parents named on the certificate (with the option of naming neither) and the patriarchal element is gone.

Brighton_belle

creased-leach wrote: »

In myideal world, there would be a shake up of the system that left us with one legally binding solution for all. It would have no religious trappings or patriarchal tradition attached to it.
...but then I'm an atheist feminist, so I would say that.

Simple then, you can have that now - not one iota of religious trapping in our wedding. You can walk in together, bride and groom or on your own. Exchange rings or neither have one. Write vows in your own words or not have any. We certainly didn't promise in sickness and health, rich or poor or any of that malarkey. Nor did we promise to death we shall part You don't have to have reading or music (we didn't). You can wear what you like ( I wore a green frock).
And it also sounds like you do not have to have your fathers details on the certificate (and the proposed change re including mothers is way overdue)
What we did have was smile tears and laughter and the general opinion was we appeared to love each other and want the best for each other.

Person_one

Mojisola wrote: »

If you have just the legal ceremony in an RO, you're not allowed any religious content so that's already in place.

All it needs is to have both parents named on the certificate (with the option of naming neither) and the patriarchal element is gone.

Of course, you do already have the option of naming neither. I found that out in about 30 seconds on google so I'm amazed the OP hasn't!

Person_one

creased-leach wrote: »

In myideal world, there would be a shake up of the system that left us with one legally binding solution for all. It would have no religious trappings or patriarchal tradition attached to it.
...but then I'm an atheist feminist, so I would say that.

You'd prefer people be able to have their own tailor made legally recognised partnerships? How on earth would that ever work?

I'm also an atheist feminist, there's no rule we all have to think the same way on everything.

BarryBlue

I believe everyone who marries should have to undertake the simple ceremony at a register office. Marriage is a legal institution and the formality should be the same for everyone, including same sex couples.

Any additional trappings are optional, whether that means a ceremony in a church, temple, mosque, fancy hotel or football ground. This is effectively the 'party' so people can go and indulge however they wish.

It is possible for people to get married on cruise ships if they wish. For instance, on P&O, their captains are honorary registrars so can conduct the ceremony, which takes place under Bermudan law. They don't permit same sex marriages though.

mildredalien

You can have a very simple civil ceremony and choose exactly what you want to happen - there are very few words that are absolutely required for a marriage to be legal. I didn't know about not having your father's details on the certificate, I wish I had (and wasn't told it was optional!) It is what it is though, we wanted to get married for our relationship not to satisfy anyone else, so we chose aspects that suited us and had the least patriarchal elements possible. I didn't get 'given away', I made sure my mum was part of the ceremony by doing a reading, my husband and I both did speeches and we're both keeping our own names. We did include vows and readings as we wanted the ceremony to reflect our personalities, but it can be really short and simple if you want.

creased-leach

Multi-quote hates me.

I have had a registry office wedding. I'm well aware there are no religious elements. I've also been a witness at a CC in the very early days. I didn't see it as being 'less' than a wedding.
However marriage, to me, my partner and many of the friends I've discussed it with is too deeply rooted in its patriarchal and religious trappings to ever be entirely extrapolated; control and female ownership is the reason it exists, after all.
While there may have been strides made away from that, there are still elements that remain the norm in a majority of cases; changing the woman's surname etc.

We've lived together for years, neither of us wants to be associated with the 'cultural baggage' of marriage; that means we have no means of gaining the legal/ financial rights of people who wed.
Civil ceremonies for heterosexual couples would address that for us and thousands of like minded couples.
The system of CC's alongside marriage being available to all works in NZ, and Holland among other places. Personally I'd like to see a more radical change, but that would be something.
(And person one, you're quite right; although I'm betting we feel the same way about the term 'feminazi' )

Sorry for the tangent op, but going back to the original question if your preference would have be been for a civil ceremony, the review is 19/20th of this month so not long to wait and see.

Lily-Rose_3

Always makes me laugh when people want all the trappings and protection that marriage brings, but don't want to be 'married.'

You can't have the best of both worlds!!! Get married if you want everything marriage brings; But if you DON'T get married, then you don't get it!

Don't expect everything that marriage brings, if you point blank refuse to get married. Why should you have it?

Some people have such a stick up their bum about 'being married,' but they still want all the advantages that come with it. Does my head in tbh.