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

Person_one

HanSpan wrote: »

I cannot really understand why people who are happy with the idea of marriage get so het up about people who aren't.

I don't think anybody would get 'het up' at all if you just preferred to stay unmarried.

Its wanting all the legal rights of marriage but being fussy about the word itself that people find silly!

melanzana

So you go to the registry office (a far away place from your current abode maybe)

You say the things you have to say.

You keep your own surname

You have all the protections now.

No one knows except you two.

Where is the !!!!in problem really?

edit.... I didn't realise that Father Jack from Ted was censoring the thread!!

pigpen

HanSpan wrote: »

If I do it that is exactly what I will do! I know not everyone now changes their name, or wears white, or is given away, and that I think most men now wear a ring where it was traditionally just women (which seemed to me like a sign of ownership). However the fact that so many do and have for so long makes the whole thing something I don't feel comfortable with. When people think of marriage they still think of all those things, and as long as that is so I don't want to be a part of it.

My friend wore purple, my mother wore green.. people wear whatever they like nowadays.
I was not 'given away' .. a dowry used to be the norm too but look how that has changed in this part of the world.
Rings are a choice.. and it did stem from ownership.. but you don't have to have anything any more, it is all down to your personal choice As it should be!

People don't think of those things any more.. they think of a whopping party, a holiday abroad with sand and sea and spending forever with the person they love and having the ceremony they want. They don't usually even think through the legalities or the financial aspects either.

(I have just consulted my daughter on this )

I think everyone builds their own wedding and marriage around what they want it to be so very few are the same.. I'd love a forest handfasting in Scotland (handfasting is not recognised as a wedding here but is there) no one but me and OH, I want a ring I don't care what he chooses, it doesn't matter, I want to know he is safe with our children should anything happen to me. I also have this idea of knitting my wedding dress... certainly not what anyone else would choose!

Think about what you would want your ceremony to look like, I bet it all looks less awkward if you think about your own needs not what has happened before. You don't even have to tell anyone you are married really.

creased-leach

Person_one wrote: »

It doesn't mean that at all, it means you have chosen not to avail yourselves of those legal rights even though you are free to. It seems a tad petulant to be honest, when same sex couples were genuinely, truly denied those rights until so recently, to complain that you just don't like the title!

Marriage these days is good for women, its a completely different beast than the patriarchal institution it was, its mostly gender neutral, certainly on the important stuff.

It's about everything that I, my partner, and many many other people associate with that title. Its a principle. The majority of my LGBT friends have also signed that petition; they believe that we should be given the choice too, and don't feel that it any way belittles the struggle they've had.

In a totally unscientific round up of all the hetero weddings I've attended/encountered/stumbled upon over the last five years;

Most Women changed their surname
"". Brides wore white
"". Women were walked down an 'aisle' by their father/father figure

An individual wedding can be made less so; but the whole institution is still tightly bound with traditions I'm not comfortable with.
Those of you who can disassociate it; I'm genuinely happy for you. I, and many others, can't.

gettingtheresometime

But I've never seen marriage about control which is why I don't see the changing of name (by either party) as ownership ....this may have been the case eons ago but not now

CharlieRabbit01

You seem to just want to make a big fuss over nothing.

I didn't have a "traditional" wedding and no one batted an eye lid, they all wanted to know what I was doing etc and no one said "well its tradition to do xyz"

I think you'll find you are becoming less of a minority.

Stop with the woe is me act and either get married or don't.

Plenty of people here are agreeing that you don't have to do the tradition and also talked about people they know who haven't done it the traditional way.

If you can't get over your feelings then your not going to get married.

Person_one

You know, I actually used to think that way, a bit, when I was younger and just discovering feminism. Then I learned more, thought about it a bit, and changed my opinion. You never know, perhaps you will too at some point and then you and your partner can get those legal and financial protections you want!

coolcait

HanSpan wrote: »

I would never have argued for heterosexual civil partnerships before same sex couples were given the right to marry, but now they are I do not see it as petulant wanting to be allowed a civil partnership.
Yes legally marriage is broadly gender neutral legally, but the traditions are still there and give me the heebiegeebies. No-one has to agree with me but its not likely I'm going to be talked out of those feelings after 30 or so years!

I think you're getting hung up on the name 'civil partnership'.

It was - almost immediately - called 'gay marriage' by many people. Mainly because the aim of the legislation was to allow same sex couples to get 'married', without actually calling it 'marriage'.

Now there is legislation which allows same sex couples to 'marry', so there's no real need for the half-hearted (but still welcome at the time) civil partnership legislation, which allowed same sex couples a certain amount of access to rights which mixed sex couples had taken for granted for years.

As a mixed sex couple, you already have access to civil marriage. As others have already said - without actually giving it the name 'civil marriage' - that offers the opportunity for you to access the legal benefits of marriage, without any of the trappings which you dislike.

It is, in every way that you seem to be looking for, a 'civil partnership'.

Bobcrowther

Person_one wrote: »

You'd prefer people be able to have their own tailor made legally recognised partnerships? How on earth would that ever work?

I'm also an atheist feminist, there's no rule we all have to think the same way on everything.

Aethiest feminist?
You're certainly keeping quiet about it.

missbiggles1

HanSpan wrote: »

Some same sex couples do, not all, there are still plenty that choose a civil parnership over marriage.

As to the traditions I have waffled elsewhere but I think creased-leach said it most succinctly.
I fully understand that lots of people *want* the white wedding and the giving away and the name change, that is all part of it for them. For me it is all those things, and the fact they are still seen as the norm, that makes me not want to be part of it. I do get that its hard for people who are perfectly fine with it all to understand how I feel, but that doesn't change the way I feel - I just accept I'm in the minority.

Civil partnerships have exactly the same legal & financial standing in this country as marriage which is the important part for me.
If one of us were taken ill abroad there's certainly no-oe else to speak for me so they would have to take what he said! And his mother is his only relative and she would tell them to listen to me I'm sure so that is a moot point.

The number of couples having a civil partnership dropped by 70% after same sex marriages became legal in 2014 - they may well not be available to anybody in the future.