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

POPPYOSCAR

duchy wrote: »

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 ?

Possibly, if I could be bothered.


Just do not want to be 'married'.

POPPYOSCAR

duchy wrote: »

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 ?

Well, it is the OP's thread!

HanSpan

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Well, it is the OP's thread!

I'm quite happy for everyone to move on to general chat, until someone starts having a go at how I feel or why I feel it or whatever - yet again!

I've tried several times to say:

Thanks for all the help and info . SO and I are genuinely very grateful.
We've looked and considered and we've decided still not to get married. IF the judicial review means CPs are available to us we'll have one, otherwise we'll stay the same.

I respect everyone's right to feel totally differently to me, and to not understand how I feel or why I feel as I do.

I'd be really grateful (and much quieter) if others could respect my right to feel differently to them, and stop trying to tell me that I should just get married and it will be fine or that my feelings are pathetic or invalid or.......

Goodnight all.

coolcait

HanSpan wrote: »

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!

Sorry, I was mixing my response to your posts on this thread, and my response to what I have read about the couple seeking the judicial review, and what I have read about the campaign to open up civil partnerships to mixed sex couples. I should have been clearer about where I was coming from!

From what I have read about the judicial review and the campaign, the participants either haven't done much proper research, or they are relying on persuading people through soundbites rather than hard facts. The 'hard facts' seem to be thin on the ground, and very much unpublished.

All that said, any sympathy I might have had with the judicial review couple evaporated when I read that they had invited the Registrar to commit an act of civil disobedience, and just register them as civil partners anyway!

....
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.
[QUOTE/]

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.

Again, sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to earlier misunderstanding about jurisdictions, but reiterating the point which has been made many times before now. Many of the things which you, and some of those campaigning for civil partnerships for mixed sex couples, cite as your reasons for disliking marriage are things which other people choose to do as part of their wedding day. They are not things which are set down in legislation.

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.

If the couple are perfectly happy living in an unconsummated marriage, then it won't be annulled. No outside agency will be able to seek an annulment.

However, if one or both parties are unhappy living that way, then they can seek divorce or they can seek an annulment.

It should be noted that other grounds for annulment are available - whether the marriage has been consummated or not.

I do find it interesting that proponents of civil partnerships for all will bring up the 'sex life is nobody's business' but ignore that fact that one of the grounds for voidability of a Civil Partnership is that - at the time of entering the partnership - one of the partners was pregnant by someone who wasn't the other partner. Somebody's sex life is under scrutiny there...

However, as with non-consummation, the above is not an automatic annulment/voiding of the partnership. One, or both, of the partners has to actively ask for it. If they're both happy enough to continue with the partnership then they can obviously do so.

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

The starting point for any PACS is what is laid down in French law. For me, much of its content is either dangerously woolly, and open to abuse by a controlling partner, and/or hideously close to State interference in the minutiae of a couple's joint life.

While I can understand that some people want a Civil Partnership style option for mixed couples - although I don't agree with their aim, and I certainly don't agree with much of the reasoning put forward in support of that aim - I simply cannot understand why any of them would put forward the PACS option as something to aim for!

I suppose that brings me back to my earlier point about research.

Petra_70

I remember someone I knew about ten years back, who was kicking off in the manner the OP is, and she had a word with an old man who used to be a vicar, and was now a magistrate.

She said 'why can we not get the same protection and respect as a married couple?'

He replied...

"If you can't keep within the confines of the law, and respect the wish the law has to marry the person you're with; then don't expect the law to protect and respect you."

Wise and profound words.

As many people have said to the OP; get married if you want all the protection and bells and frills marriage brings. If you refuse to get married, you ain't gonna get it.

The OP needs to deal with it and stop whining. NOTHING she says is ever going to change anything.

As someone said earlier, no matter WHAT people say on here to the OP, she is not going to agree with anything ANYONE says.

All she wants is a special little bespoke agreement for her and her boyfriend.

Well it's not gonna happen HanSpan. You will just have to get married. If you don't want to, because it's SOOOOOO bad being a little wifey, then you will NOT get the protection marriage brings.

Sorry luv.

coolcait

duchy wrote: »

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 ?

I don't agree with that.

The 'general discussion' part ended - in my view - when there were a couple of posts which were about the OP, attributing her with certain motivations for not wanting to get married.

I didn't think that those ascribed motivations were a fair reflection of what the OP has been saying about her reasons for not wanting to get married. And I say that as someone whose contributions to the thread show that I disagree with much of what the OP has said in terms of 'weddings' and 'marriage' and my view of the differences between the two!

I think it was fair for her to respond to those posts and re-state her position - especially as it had been misrepresented.

If people want to keep the 'general discussion' part of the thread running - and I'm finding it interesting, so I'd quite like that too - then it will probably work better if posters stick to general discussion rather than personal points about/against the OP.

coolcait

duchy wrote: »

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 ?

I wouldn't.

However, there is a part of me which would be interested to see what would happen if a CP option was available for mixed sex couples.

I've been a regular reader of this forum - and others - for many years. Not to mention an assiduous reader of magazines, including the agony columns, for decades.

There is a very common 'problem', which I have seen many, many times:

"I have been with my partner for 'x' years, we have 'y' children (optional). I would love to get married, but (s)he is against marriage on principle".

If a non-marriage option is available, which demonstrates commitment while providing security, will all of those principled marriage-avoiders get themselves down to a Registry Office, or other registered venue, and enter into a Civil Partnership with their partner of 'x' years?

Or will Civil Partnership also be deemed 'just a piece of paper' which the couple don't need - according to the one who is reluctant to plight a legally binding troth?

It would be interesting to see what happened.

duchy

If one half of a couple wants to get married and the other doesn't then CP is just going to be a second class marriage though.

I honestly don't see the point .

Marriage today is evolved -as women's role became more equal so did marriage and the law has more or less kept up.
Compare marriage in say the 50s when women were expected to give up work as soon as they married, if they wanted a loan they needed their husband to counter sign, rape was acceptable within marriage and domestic violence was ignored.

I think we should be celebrating what marriage has become and embrace it in its current form not keep harking back to how it used to be.

I don't want marriage to be traditional - I want it to reflect our current society and I believe generally it does..

seven-day-weekend

coolcait wrote: »

I wouldn't.

However, there is a part of me which would be interested to see what would happen if a CP option was available for mixed sex couples.

I've been a regular reader of this forum - and others - for many years. Not to mention an assiduous reader of magazines, including the agony columns, for decades.

There is a very common 'problem', which I have seen many, many times:

"I have been with my partner for 'x' years, we have 'y' children (optional). I would love to get married, but (s)he is against marriage on principle".

If a non-marriage option is available, which demonstrates commitment while providing security, will all of those principled marriage-avoiders get themselves down to a Registry Office, or other registered venue, and enter into a Civil Partnership with their partner of 'x' years?

Or will Civil Partnership also be deemed 'just a piece of paper' which the couple don't need - according to the one who is reluctant to plight a legally binding troth?

It would be interesting to see what happened.

Yes ^^^^^This. Absolutely.

Homeownertobe

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.

There's a crucial difference you're missing here - the OP is perfectly served already by a civil ceremony.

You seem worryingly hysterical.