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

HanSpan

pigpen wrote: »

So you want the LEGAL aspects of marriage without having to state that you agree to the LEGAL terms... ???

Exactly how could that possibly work?

By the very nature of the situation/ceremony you are agreeing whether you say the words or not.. Wherever it is held.. because the legalities provided are the same.

Civil partnerships is an insult to same-sex couples and obsolete now they can get married just the same as heterosexual couples.. as it absolutely should be.. you want your relationship categorised as a second class status because you don't want to say the things you are actually wanting the ceremony to provide??


In my registry office wedding I said I didn't know of any legal reason I couldn't get married and that was all.. I didn't vow or promise anything. I did have my dads details on my certificate because I didn't know I could choose to not have it on... if I remarried I wouldn't have his details on.

No I want the legal benefits a civil partnership provide, and if I could have one of those I would.
I don't see them as second class - just different - and with none of the tradition attached to marriage that I find so uncomfortable.

HanSpan

Person_one wrote: »

Of course, you do already have the option of naming neither. I found that out in about 30 seconds on google so I'm amazed the OP hasn't!

You must have found a better site then as I had not found that.

HanSpan

Brighton_belle wrote: »

Simple then, you can have that now - not one iota of religious trapping in our wedding. You can walk in together, bride and groom or on your own. Exchange rings or neither have one. Write vows in your own words or not have any. We certainly didn't promise in sickness and health, rich or poor or any of that malarkey. Nor did we promise to death we shall part You don't have to have reading or music (we didn't). You can wear what you like ( I wore a green frock).
And it also sounds like you do not have to have your fathers details on the certificate (and the proposed change re including mothers is way overdue)
What we did have was smile tears and laughter and the general opinion was we appeared to love each other and want the best for each other.

But it still has the other part that I (and it seems creased-leach) don't want - patriarchal tradition attached to it.

pigpen

HanSpan wrote: »

No I want the legal benefits a civil partnership provide, and if I could have one of those I would.
I don't see them as second class - just different - and with none of the tradition attached to marriage that I find so uncomfortable.

well the same sex couples do!!


What tradition applied to marriage?? What aspects do you find uncomfortable? (I need to ask my OH this question too so your answer may be really helpful)

Civil partnerships do not have the same financial benefits which are also what you specified. They are also not recognised in civilised countries where same sex marriage is legal which means if you went there and one was taken ill the other would not automatically be classed as next of kin or able to make decisions regarding the others care.

Keep_pedalling

In Scotland you can have both mother and father's name on the MC.

HanSpan

creased-leach wrote: »

Multi-quote hates me.

I have had a registry office wedding. I'm well aware there are no religious elements. I've also been a witness at a CC in the very early days. I didn't see it as being 'less' than a wedding.
However marriage, to me, my partner and many of the friends I've discussed it with is too deeply rooted in its patriarchal and religious trappings to ever be entirely extrapolated; control and female ownership is the reason it exists, after all.
While there may have been strides made away from that, there are still elements that remain the norm in a majority of cases; changing the woman's surname etc.

We've lived together for years, neither of us wants to be associated with the 'cultural baggage' of marriage; that means we have no means of gaining the legal/ financial rights of people who wed.
Civil ceremonies for heterosexual couples would address that for us and thousands of like minded couples.
The system of CC's alongside marriage being available to all works in NZ, and Holland among other places. Personally I'd like to see a more radical change, but that would be something.
(And person one, you're quite right; although I'm betting we feel the same way about the term 'feminazi' )

Sorry for the tangent op, but going back to the original question if your preference would have be been for a civil ceremony, the review is 19/20th of this month so not long to wait and see.

Oh you have said exactly how I feel! And why I don't want to be married at all. I'm toying with doing it in the US as I somehow that would feel less "real" to me. and I'd not change my name or even tell anyone I don't think.

Its really hard to decide what to do as I really don't want to be married, but also I really don't want to leave my SO up the creek if I were to die and there are some things I just can't legally sort without being bound by law.

The equivalent of Civil Partnerships exist in France as well and I think I read something like a third of heterosexual couples now choose that instead of marriage.

System

pigpen wrote: »

My sister is a barrister and was told she could only practice under the name on her qualification .

That is not right. The reason the majority of female barristers keep their maiden names is that it takes the guesswork out of whether the judges call them Miss X or Mrs X. Keep it to the maiden name and they just call them Miss X.

Like doctors there is no legal reason why they cannot change their name. There are processes in both professions to get the relevant registers/registrations changed

HanSpan

Lily-Rose wrote: »

Always makes me laugh when people want all the trappings and protection that marriage brings, but don't want to be 'married.'

You can't have the best of both worlds!!! Get married if you want everything marriage brings; But if you DON'T get married, then you don't get it!

Don't expect everything that marriage brings, if you point blank refuse to get married. Why should you have it?

Some people have such a stick up their bum about 'being married,' but they still want all the advantages that come with it. Does my head in tbh.

If I could bann all the partiarchal traditions from all marriages and totally disassiciate them from the giving or selling of a woman from one man to another I wouldn't mind, but as long as the norm is for a woman to give up her name, be given away by one man to another, wear virginal white etc etc then I will never be comfortable with it.
I want the legal protections afforded to couples who marry for me and the man I have lived with for 25 years, yet I really don't want to take part in something I find so uncomfortable.

gettingtheresometime

I must admit it's threads like this that makes me realise how there are things that I simply haven't given a minute's thought to that other people get worked up about.

When I got married it didn't even occur to me not to change my name....I didn't see it as being owned by husband for one minute

Don't have a particular religion no problem that can be accommodated as well.

I didn't know that you could have your father's details omitted on the marriage certificate on the basis I must have looked at mine in the last 25 yrs about 10 times I'm not too upset that my father's details are on there

TonyMMM

There is no "giving away" in a standard civil ceremony ( it can be added as an option if requested) , you can wear whatever colour you want , and marriage has no automatic effect on a woman's name .... I'm not sure what patriarchal traditions you think there still are ?