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

onomatopoeia99

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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.

See, I don't understand this at all. If two people are together it should be because they want to be and because they love and make each other happy, not because of a legal contract that binds them and makes it difficult to split without either blame or a long wait.

If they are unhappy they should talk and try to resolve the cause of their unhappiness, rather than line up someone else and then just leave with a new home to go to and without ever saying anything.

I don't regard buying a home together and committing to pay for it over 25 years as a trifling commitment that I'd undertake with someone that considered me no more than a "friend with benefits", but I would certainly do it with someone I loved without needing a marriage contract to bind her to me in case she found a different bloke she liked better - if she didn't want to be with me and wasn't prepared to talk about why and try to resolve it, then she's better off leaving and I'm better off with her gone. I can't see how a marriage contract would make a difference, other than being more difficult and expensive to unravel.

onomatopoeia99

Homeownertobe wrote: »

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.

50+ years ago, the law didn't care that gay men wanted to have sex, it imprisoned them anyway. Conform to a societal norm, or suffer.

20 years ago, the law didn't care that only a man and a woman could marry, the option wasn't there for same sex couples. Conform, or suffer from missing out on the benefits reserved for those that do conform.

We now have many posters telling the OP to conform or suffer. Any age of enlightenment is clearly over and we are back to the oppression of the majority, on here at least.

I don't understand why so many are so terrified of opening civil partnerships to other than same sex couples.

seven-day-weekend

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

See, I don't understand this at all. If two people are together it should be because they want to be and because they love and make each other happy, not because of a legal contract that binds them and makes it difficult to split without either blame or a long wait.

If they are unhappy they should talk and try to resolve the cause of their unhappiness, rather than line up someone else and then just leave with a new home to go to and without ever saying anything.

I don't regard buying a home together and committing to pay for it over 25 years as a trifling commitment that I'd undertake with someone that considered me no more than a "friend with benefits", but I would certainly do it with someone I loved without needing a marriage contract to bind her to me in case she found a different bloke she liked better - if she didn't want to be with me and wasn't prepared to talk about why and try to resolve it, then she's better off leaving and I'm better off with her gone. I can't see how a marriage contract would make a difference, other than being more difficult and expensive to unravel.

That's your opinion, but there are many people to whom the legal commitment is very important.


We have been married for 45 years this year and we married because we loved each other, we couldn't see why you wouldn't marry if you loved each other and the legal commitment, to us, was the result of that love. People did in fact live together without marriage 45 years ago, although not as openly as today, it's not a new thing.

HanSpan

coolcait wrote: »

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.

But I never said I wanted to lobby for a change! I don't feel strongly enough to do that, nor in face to I need to as there is already a campaign!
I was just looking for advice and information about the options to see if SO and I were going to change our minds and get married somewhere. We aren't! None of the options makes us feel comfortable enough to do it despite any financial advantages it could bring.

Someone early on in the topic then explained the juducial review about civil partnerships happens this month - which makes the possibility of it happening more imminent than I had realised, and then several people said but it won't happen - they will just get rid of civil partnerships.
It's an interesting topic and there has been some interesting information but we will still have to wait for that judicial review to see the outcome.
Those who say CPs will be done away with may be right, I hope not but I will just have to sait and see.

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.

I had a fairly good understanding of the legislation and the compulsory vs voluntary bits, although I did not realise Scottish law was different. Had I realised I would have said in my initial questiont aht we are looking for the rules etc outside the UK - my mistake which I have owned several times.

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.

The whole annulment if not consumated is one of the many things I would want out of anything I sign up to - I do think its no-one's business and shouldn't be able to be used in that way.
As to the PACs - I could go off them if you can take one another to court for trivia! But realistically isn't what you write in it up to you? so if you write something that says you can't take out loans independantly (or whatever) then that's a pretty daft thing to do!
From a wholly personal point of view it wouldn't be an issue for us. 25+ years and finances have never caused an issue at all. Mind you - could I sue him for eating the last of the peanut butter and not telling me

duchy

Does anyone who is married feel that if in the future the OP's wish comes true and there was CP for all they would wish they could have had a CP rather than marriage ......and if so what makes you feel that way ?

How many couples would cancel their weddings and have a CP instead if the OP got her wish ?

coolcait

missbiggles1 wrote: »

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

Quite.

I find it hard to reconcile the idea of solidarity (which is what the 'S' in PACS stands for) with the fact that one of the partners can unilaterally end it.

This can be done by a notification in writing to the authorities or - for those who have a taste for the flamboyant - by marrying someone else.

The authorities then send a letter to the other party in the PACS, as notification that the PACS is at an end.

HanSpan

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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.

I don't get it, I understand the words but I can't imagine the feelings as I just don't feel that way and never have. But that just means we are different and I can respect their feelings even if I don't share them.

coolcait

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

I don't understand why so many are so terrified of opening civil partnerships to other than same sex couples.

Who has expressed terror at the thought of opening civil partnerships to other than same sex couples?

I haven't seen that anywhere on this thread.

HanSpan

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

50+ years ago, the law didn't care that gay men wanted to have sex, it imprisoned them anyway. Conform to a societal norm, or suffer.

20 years ago, the law didn't care that only a man and a woman could marry, the option wasn't there for same sex couples. Conform, or suffer from missing out on the benefits reserved for those that do conform.

We now have many posters telling the OP to conform or suffer. Any age of enlightenment is clearly over and we are back to the oppression of the majority, on here at least.

I don't understand why so many are so terrified of opening civil partnerships to other than same sex couples.

Thank you!

I think that's why I find my self still engaging in this when I didn't ever start this intending to row about anything, I just wanted some pointers as to the rules in other places. I rather wish I'd never asked now!

duchy

Actually the conversation was moving on to a more general discussion - but every time it did - up you popped talking about yourself....again.

Have you spoken to your MP about your problem ?