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

duchy

Conform or suffer ????

She's a fifty year old woman who has lived with her partner for many years and now realizes that when the grim reaper appears not having a marriage certificate will cost hard cash and she's trying to find a way to avoid that without going back on her lifelong affirmation that marriage is not for her. Hardly "suffering"

As previously note there is an opposing view that women as well as gay couples should both embrace marriage because it has transformed from oppresive to liberated in a few decades rather than grumbling about the bad old days.

Person_one

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.

Its actually rather offensive to compare someone grumbling unnecessarily about the non-existent 'oppression' in marriage to a genuine discrimination that lasted all of history until last year and actually denied people basic human rights.

onlyroz

I don't think anybody is telling the OP to "conform or suffer". Modern marriage is far removed from the traditional set up of centuries past, and will no doubt continue to evolve with the times. And marriage is more likely to evolve for the better if more people get married choosing the non-traditional options.

So if we want to encourage women to shun the white dress, and to not have to worry about consummating the marriage, or being "given away" by their father, then instead of saying "I won't get married", they should say "I will get married and I will proudly show the world how to do things a better way".

cats2012

I read 3 out of 7 pages of this before getting frustrated.

I consider myself fairly feminist in my views, but I also got married, changed my name, wore white, had my Dad "give me away" etc etc.

I also manage all the money in our household, earn more than my husband and intend to work as a mother (assuming I become one!).

Women have worked for decades to have these choices. It drives me mad that by making more traditional choices I can be labelled as anti-feminist, male-dominated etc etc. I chose everything I have done, I know full well I could have done other things and don't judge anyone who does!

What's the point in feminism and equality if we're going to be judged for making the choice anyway?!

*rant over*

missbiggles1

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.

Marriage never stopped someone leaving their spouse but it offers legal protection over children and shared property if it happened. What you're proposing offers very little legal protection for either party so is pointless.

If you just want to promise someone that you'll stay with them until you get a better offer or you become bored - just turn over in bed and say it.

seven-day-weekend

It has never been compulsory to wear a white dress, be given away, take the man's name, nor have any religious bits, afaik.

When I got married in 1971 in a registry office, I only had to affirm that I was free to marry and that I wanted to be married to this man. I wore a dress I already had, we stood side-by-side in front of the registrar, and being a registry office there were no religious bits, nor did I make any vows. There were twelve people there, but as long as there are two witnesses (who can be someone off the street or RO staff), then that would be sufficient.

So I don't see why a registry office wedding with no frills would not suffice for the OP. It seems to me as though they want to commit with out actually committing.

missbiggles1

coolcait wrote: »

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.




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.

I've obviously read the same PACS articles as you have and it seems to me that many young French couples are using them as an entry route to a full marriage, rather as used to be the case for a traditional engagement here which has quite rigorous legal responsibilities and where you could sue a fiance who broke the engagement.

missbiggles1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

It has never been compulsory to wear a white dress, be given away, take the man's name, nor have any religious bits, afaik.

When I got married in 1971 in a registry office, I only had to affirm that I was free to marry and that I wanted to be married to this man. I wore a dress I already had, we stood side-by-side in front of the registrar, and being a registry office there were no religious bits, nor did I make any vows. There were twelve people there, but as long as there are two witnesses (who can be someone off the street or RO staff), then that would be sufficient.

So I don't see why a registry office wedding with no frills would not suffice for the OP. It seems to me as though they want to commit with out actually committing.

My second wedding was in 1987 and very similar to yours (except I'd bought a new dress). My first was in a church in 1982 where I wore scarlet.

In neither case was I given away nor did I change my name.

jackieblack

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

It seems to me as though they want to commit with out actually committing.

It seems to me that they want all "the legal and financial benefits" (to quote the OP) without any of the responsibilities, disadvantages or commitment

mumps

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.

Well the facts are that unless you get married you don't get the protection marriage offers. You won't be alone in not being given away, not wearing white or changing your name. I know lots of people that applies to, several in my family and lots of friends, perhaps you know lots of people who didn't have the sort of wedding you are imagining and you don't even know they are married. You don't need to lie unless anyone suddenly decides to ask if you are married and even then you can just not answer. It is your choice.

What are the actual protections you are looking for, if you said perhaps someone would know how you could get them without a wedding?