Civil partnerships for straight couples

missbiggles1

onlyroz wrote: »

Refusing to have sex is still grounds for marriage annulment.

But that's not the same as the marriage never being consummated.

missbiggles1

onlyroz wrote: »

If marriage was modified to allow for this scenario then a civil partnership would be entirely redundant.

That sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

gayleygoo

duchy wrote: »

Registry office ceremonies ARE Civil ceremonies - They aren't allowed to mention religion or God .

Taking the other view a registry office ceremony could be considered as cocking a snook at the tradition that marriage had to be in a church with the traditional add ons - and that marriage today is a celebration of the victory that marriage is now inclusive in terms of gender , race, religion and that women are equal partners and not chattels. It never ceases to amaze me how many feminists take the "it was oppressive" view rather than the " We need to participate in this wonderful equal venture that so many people battled to transform and celebrate their achievement"

Of course you could always go to Vegas - get Elvis to marry you at a drive through window - and then just have the marriage registered when you get back to Britain. It'd be legal but not include anything of wedding tradition and have the advantage of complete tackiness too

Whoops, I think I meant I'd prefer a civil *partnership*. Mixed myself up with the second paragraph, my apologies, I'll amend that. OH and I did research into the history of marriage not so long ago, and were quite surprised by its history. I had hoped it would maybe change his mind...:o

coolcait

barbarawright wrote: »

What is not correct about my statement? The key difference between civil partnership and marriage is that there is no legal assumption that civil partners are in a sexual relationships. This has obvious implications for those investigating marriages/partnerships of convenience for immigration purposes and also makes civil partnerships appropriate for close friends who may wish to ensure a housemates inheritance rights

onlyroz wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better to modify marriage to remove the assumption that the relationship is sexual?

Having scrolled through the Marriage legislation and the Civil Partnership legislation (again!) it's probably more accurate to say that there's an assumption that both types of relationship/union may be sexual.

Both pieces of legislation prohibit a union between two people who are within the Prohibited Degrees of Relationship. It's a very "No Sex, please - we're British!" way of addressing the issue. But it's there.

The immigration side doesn't really look at whether or not the couple is getting jiggy. They're more interested in making sure that the resident spouse can financially support the immigrating spouse, and that neither party has been forced into marriage.

They will look at the day to day things which suggest that a relationship might be genuine - living together, sharing financial responsibilities, sharing responsibilities for children, that the couple have actually met, how they met, that they know basic things like each other's name...

Also, as noted before, there's no obligation to annul a marriage because it hasn't been consummated. If the couple are happy with that fact, then that's all that matters.

Going back to the actual legislation. Reading through it - even speed-reading - really makes it clear that the Civil Partnership legislation was designed to be 'marriage for same sex partners' - without having to say that out loud.

The prohibited degrees of relationships are the same. The notice periods are the same as those for civil marriages. The special provisions (for example, if someone is too ill to go through some of the usual hoops) are the same.

The absolute basic requirements to make it legal are the same - the two people contracting the union must make declaratory statements in the presence of an authorised person and two witnesses, in a place which is 'public'.

The declaratory statements are along the same lines as those used in marriage (although - clearly - 'marriage', 'husband' and 'wife' could not be used, as that would have blown away the pretence that Civil Partnerships were not really the same sex marriage that could not speak its name).

And so on.

The idea that the existing legislation could easily be tweaked a little to let friends, siblings, or next-door neighbours contract a Civil Partnership seems very wrong.

Once again, I wonder if the couple who are seeking the Judicial Review, or those who argue along the same lines, have actually looked at the legislation?

duchy

barbarawright wrote: »

I'm just stating a fact. There *is* a legal difference between civil partnership and marriage and there are perfectly valid reasons why people should want a CP.

I'm struggling to see any valid reasons- if anything this discussion has underlined how weak the arguments for keeping or extending CP are .

TonyMMM

The couple have lost the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845

I would expect a review of whether CPs are still required for anyone to be announced shortly.

missbiggles1

TonyMMM wrote: »

The couple have lost the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845

I would expect a review of whether CPs are still required for anyone to be announced shortly.

Well, that's good news.

duchy

33,000 people signed the petition
Considering the wide coverage this bid to change the law got - there was clearly very little public support for it.

All this squawking about wanting a union that is equal makes no sense- In what way is modern marriage NOT legally equal ? I think the judge made the correct decision.

I agree the next step will be to start the process to remove new CPs from the statute books but protect the rights of existing CPs.

fierystormcloud

TonyMMM wrote: »

The couple have lost the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845

I would expect a review of whether CPs are still required for anyone to be announced shortly.

GOOD! :T

duchy wrote: »

I'm struggling to see any valid reasons- if anything this discussion has underlined how weak the arguments for keeping or extending CP are .

There ARE no valid reasons. You want the protection that marriage brings? Get married. Stop whining that you can't have a civil partnership. Just get married FGS.

You don't have to get married in Church, you don't have to wear a big fussy white dress, you don't have to have flowers, and you don't even have to have photographs!

And you don't need to invite anyone. In fact you don't even need to TELL anyone! Just get 2 random people for witnesses, sign the paperwork, and go back home!

And you don't even have to change your surname!

All the reasons people give for not wanting marriage are feeble to say the least, as well as utterly irrelevant.

duchy wrote: »

33,000 people signed the petition
Considering the wide coverage this bid to change the law got - there was clearly very little public support for it.

All this squawking about wanting a union that is equal makes no sense- In what way is modern marriage NOT legally equal ? I think the judge made the correct decision.

I agree the next step will be to start the process to remove new CPs from the statute books but protect the rights of existing CPs.

Yep, they had very little support. It's only the whingeing hipsters who think being married means the man 'owns' the woman who are complaining. The vast majority of the British public have more sense than to think this. Now gay marriage is legal, CPs should be done away with.

enthusiasticsaver

I have not read the whole of this thread or the previous one and in fact I think I must have been living in a bubble as the only thing I saw regarding this was an article on the internet saying this couple had lost their court action. TBH my first thought was what a waste of court time and money(not sure whose money?) in bringing this case in the first place. A heterosexual couple wanting a civil partnership just because same sex couples have that as an option and claiming discrimination? I think they are crazy. If they want a partnership to be recognised in law then just get married? The judge made the right decision IMHO.