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

Person_one

I don't think it's 30%, where did you get that figure OP? Looks more like 10-20% from what I can see.

In most of the countries that offer a 'civil partnership' option to straight couples there are differences to marriage, rather than it being the same thing with a different name as you want. It actually makes more sense that way, to me.

HanSpan

Person_one wrote: »

I don't think it's 30%, where did you get that figure OP? Looks more like 10-20% from what I can see.

In most of the countries that offer a 'civil partnership' option to straight couples there are differences to marriage, rather than it being the same thing with a different name as you want. It actually makes more sense that way, to me.

See my maths in my previous post.
I'm not saying it is definitely the same all over, just that seems to be the case for the only actual figures I've seen recently - the 70% of gay couples getting legal bound moving to marriage (thus logically 30% aren't) and the french heterosexual PACs/marriage data for 2012.

Where are you getting the 10-20% from?

Err where are you getting that I want something exactly the same as marriage but with a different name? You are again assuming I have views that I have not stated, and indeed do not have. There *are* differences here in civil partnerships or I'd not want one instead of a marriage! And that's differences apart from the ones in state pensions that I still don't actually understand, which you insist exist, but haven't explained.

I don't know what differences there are in other countries between the marriage and alternative options. I'd be interested to read them if you can point me at details though..

lazer

The high update of PAC's in France could be more to do with the differences in legislation.


I think it is much easier to enter a PAC's, and definitely easier to get off - a official letter to dissolve it is all that is required.


I doesn't require the same documentation as a marriage does, its a simple declaration.


A PAC's can also be individually drawn up. can include property rights, and can include if assets are owned in common or separately.


Civil partnership and marriage in the UK are identical (Almost in terms of property rights, future pension rights, next of kin, inheritance etc).


It is unfair to compare civil partnership with PAC's

missbiggles1

Tygermoth wrote: »

Sorry I was not clear - a ceremony at a registry office - I believe you can not just rock up and hand over signed paperwork for a registry wedding- regardless we would be married. Thus a change of status.


I would like to just register my wishes for my partner to have some legal say re pensions, illness and housing issues. That is all.


We do not wish to be married, we never have. Hopefully in the future there will be an accommodation that will allow this.

If you're in a civil partnership, that's also a change of status - if it weren't it wouldn't offer you any legal protection.

Person_one

HanSpan wrote: »

I've never wanted to be married - not since I was 12 and I'm nearly 50 now! However my SO and I are now in the situation that we could really do with the legal and financial benefits of marriage.

HanSpan wrote: »

Err where are you getting that I want something exactly the same as marriage but with a different name?

From basically all your posts! :rotfl:

missbiggles1

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!

I love the quote about PACS from a French sociologist that "The PACS allows a couple to commit without really committing" - definitely a second class marriage.

missbiggles1

HanSpan wrote: »

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!

They're probably the ones saving up to have the same bells and whistles wedding that so many straight people have.;) Either that or they've already separated but haven't got round to doing the paperwork for the divorce!

coolcait

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!

Having read through the PACS stuff, I was quite surprised to learn that so many people have opted for it.

Then I also read that many are attracted to it because if the PACS is ended (which, it seems, can be done by either party sending a letter to that effect) then neither party has a claim on the assets of the other.

In many ways, it seems that the attraction of the PACS may have less to do with the sharing of assets during the relationship, and more to do with keeping them out of the other person's reach if the relationship ends!

There's at least on article on the web where the writer blithely expounds the PACS as an easy way to commit visa fraud. Possibly not what was intended when it was first introduced...

The Swedish legislation for people who live together without getting married (there's no way that MSE will let me write the colloquial term that the Swedes use for that!) also provides less financial and legal protection than marriage.

In both France and Sweden, there is anecdotal evidence that some couples will start off in a PACS/S..mbo relationship, and then get married after some years.

I have no intention of checking the laws of every European country, or non-European country, to see how it works elsewhere. The discussion has been interesting for me, but not that interesting!

For me, the current legislation for marriage in various parts of the UK - whatever the gender of the partners in any individual marriage - provides adequate provision for the financial and legal protection of both partners.

As a result, the Civil Partnership legislation is now obsolete. It was a halfway stage between same sex couples having no rights whatsoever and the current situation where they have a legal right to get married.

It was necessary - and very welcome - legislation at the time it was introduced. Now, it just serves as a memory of a time when same sex couple were effectively viewed as second class citizens, and denied rights which others took for granted.

Against that background, I do find it odd that so many people who reject marriage because of the historic and 'patriarchal' aspects are lobbying so hard have access to legislation which - to others - is a reminder of the way that same sex couples were subjugated and discriminated against for so long.

duchy

HanSpan wrote: »

I don't know what differences there are in other countries between the marriage and alternative options. I'd be interested to read them if you can point me at details though..

Or alternatively you could research them yourself !


You asked me if I thought CP's are a good idea...............

I have gay friends and family and having talked to them and what it meant I fall into the camp that welcomed it as a stepping stone to full equal rights for same sex couples but now sees it as redundant as equality has been achieved with equal marriage for all. I fully expect it to be ended.

Like another poster I can't understand with your social conscience causing you to reject marriage because of its associations with oppression in the past why on earth you would want a union founded on giving same sex couples some but not all the rights of marriage. Surely that too is oppression ?

duchy

coolcait wrote: »

I have no intention of checking the laws of every European country, or non-European country, to see how it works elsewhere. The discussion has been interesting for me, but not that interesting!

.

:T:T:T

Looks like you need to do this yourself OP
Don't forget to come and share your findings with us.