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

HanSpan

missbiggles1 wrote: »

If you want to be a wild, free, unfettered creature who loves where they will, unconstrained by society's rules then go ahead and do it and keep your self respect.

Don't lose your dignity and compromise your principles by putting yourself (and the person you love) in a second class marriage which you can escape from easily.

I've lived happily (mostly) with several people and been married happily (the second time) but if someone told me I was only good enough to contract a second rate contract with but not good enough to marry I'd tell them exactly where they could stick their civil partnership!

But I don't see it as second class and nor does my SO! Just different, and for us preferable. Each to their own.

I too have had previous relationships and in more than one have been asked to get married. My feelings are the mirror opposite of yours - I had to tell them that if marriage was their ultimate aim the relationship had to end - I don't think I ever told them to stick their relationship in quite those words but I guess the sentiment is exactly the same

missbiggles1

HanSpan wrote: »

I do NOT want to be married, and if what someone else has said about the PACs is true that would in fact suit me far better if it were available to me. I would actually far far prefer to have a legal agreement that only lasts for as long as we choose to stay together.

I don't believe I have made incorrect assumptions about marriage.
I have said that I do not feel comfortable with getting married (fact) that I don't want to be a "wife" (fact) that I do not want to take part in something where the majority still choose to include practices in the marriage, and rituals at the ceremony, which reflect the historical oppression of women - even IF I don't have those rituals (fact).
I have also said that I would find it difficult to get married then not tell anyone - I would - I find it very difficult to lie (fact).

As far as I can recall the only "assumptions" I have made are about my own feelings, which I'm pretty sure I am better placed to judge than others.

Only lasts until one of you wants to end it - fat lot of legal protection then!

HanSpan

Petra_70 wrote: »

Utterly brilliant post. :j:T:)

I have to say; the attitude of the OP, and people like her makes me so angry. (Oh *I* am not going to conform to society and get married, but I want everything that marriage brings financially, and all the protection it brings.)

What IS their problem with being married? IMO, all this talk of how they will NOT get married, because 'it used to mean ownership of the woman' is an utter crock. It does not mean that now! So that is a lame excuse!

All it is, is she just doesn't want to be seen to be 'conforming' to what society expects, and thinks she is all cool and new age by refusing to conform to what society expects. Such a hipster.

It's such a cheek really. WE HATE MARRIAGE BUT WE WANT ALL THE ADVANTAGES THAT GO WITH IT.

Do me a favour! :mad:

Oh for goodness sake. Stop attributing your feelings about how I feel onto me. I am not cool or new age or any such thing and conforming or not to society has nothing to do with it.

gettingtheresometime

I have the feeing that the op has an axe to grind and no amount of pointing out that a wedding doesn't need to involve the White dress, the walking down the aisle & and be 'given away' or wearing of a ring/changing of name they're still going to have some reason as to why marriage is not for them but want the legal advantages of it

coolcait

HanSpan wrote: »

....
For myself I have done sufficient research to find that, whatever the rules are attached to those other civil partnership-like things, none of them are recognised in the UK between heterosexual couples. The specifics of each are therefore irrelevant to my situation and the options that may or may not be available to me and I haven't the time to engage in that degree of digging just for entertainment.

I suppose it depends how strongly people feel about the status quo, and how strongly they want to change it.

If I were in a position where I wanted to lobby for a change of legislation on somethings, I would research and compile a dossier of similar legislation around the world.

I would also make sure that I had an in-depth knowledge of the existing legislation across the UK. That would allow me to identify which parts of the whole marriage/wedding malarkey were part of the legislation, and which parts were down to the individual's personal preference.

As for the PACS, I can see the MSE threads now. "My partner and I want to go into a PACS, and the law says that we must share our finances equally, based on what we earn. So, basically the law says that we should pay on a pro rata basis, but my partner wants to opt out of that and pay in a way which gives him/her a financial advantage".

And "I'm in a PACS and desperately need to take out a loan to finish off my graduate studies/leave this abusive relationship. My partner can't/won't help me financially, and (s)he refuses to give her/his agreement to me taking out a loan. As we are in a PACS, we both need to agree to the loan. What do I do? (I don't want to leave the relationship)"

It surprises me that proponents of the PACS alternative are so against the idea that a marriage can be annulled on the basis of non-consummation - and see that as being too much state intervention in the relationship - but are quite happy to endorse a system which allows for state intervention in the couple's day to day finances.

HanSpan

mumps wrote: »

Is it still the norm for women to be given away by one man to another, wear virginal white? I've been married along time and neither of those things happened to me. I did change my name but I had personal reasons for that.

Only a few weeks ago I went to a wedding of a pretty young couple where she wore white, was walked down the aisle by brother and father and changed her surname to her new husband's.
Maybe different people have different groups of friends and it isn't so common amongst other groups, I can only speak for the people I know and in the past 20 years I genuinely cannot think of a single wedding I have attended where those three things did not happen - even the ones in registry offices.

I didn't go (obviously - there were just them & two witnesses) but I did have a colleague who went off to the registry office at lunch time, so I suspect she wasn't wearing white but I don't actually know. That really is the only one I can think of and I think she still changed her surname.

seven-day-weekend

HanSpan wrote: »

The world would be very a dull place if we all felt the same way. I can't fathom why anyone wants to get married, (other than for the tax and pension benefits)!

Many people want to be legally bound to each other and for them, not to be would feel like they were 'friends with benefits' and they would feel their partner was always on the look-out for a better offer. The marriage shows a legal commitment that is important to them.

HanSpan

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Only lasts until one of you wants to end it - fat lot of legal protection then!

But I don't want legal protection to stop him leaving me (or vica versa) or to fleece him for money if he does (or visa versa). Just to protect us whilst we both choose to stay together.

One of the reasons when I was younger for not wanting to get married (before I knew you didn't have to say this bit) was that I didn't want to make a promise I couldn't guarantee to keep - to stay with someone "till death do us part" - nor did I want someone to promise me that.
I have really never wanted to feel like someone was with me, even in part, becuase they have said they would stay. I want someone to be with me because they choose to be, right then and there.

HanSpan

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

I have the feeing that the op has an axe to grind and no amount of pointing out that a wedding doesn't need to involve the White dress, the walking down the aisle & and be 'given away' or wearing of a ring/changing of name they're still going to have some reason as to why marriage is not for them but want the legal advantages of it

I have no axe to grind. There seem to be an awful lot of people attributing feelings to me that I just don't have.

I said up front I don't and have never wanted to be married but that the legal/financial things would now be beneficial. I was looking for information about what was possible and legal and where to see whether there was an option that SO and I would feel comfortable going ahead with.
Having looked at the options and discussed it I have later said that SO and I agree that we still don't want to get married and, unless civil partnerships are equalised so we can do that, we won't get married.
That is our decision. Anyone else that wants to get married that is their decision. I've never said others shouldn't, or attacked their beliefs about it being a good thing, so I really don't undersatnd why so many are getting het up about how I feel. It really doesn't affect anyone else does it?

Homeownertobe

HanSpan wrote: »

But I don't want legal protection to stop him leaving me (or vica versa) or to fleece him for money if he does (or visa versa). Just to protect us whilst we both choose to stay together.

One of the reasons when I was younger for not wanting to get married (before I knew you didn't have to say this bit) was that I didn't want to make a promise I couldn't guarantee to keep - to stay with someone "till death do us part" - nor did I want someone to promise me that.
I have really never wanted to feel like someone was with me, even in part, becuase they have said they would stay. I want someone to be with me because they choose to be, right then and there.

Unfortunately the law doesn't care what you want. So you can get married and have the legal protection, or not. It's really that simple.