Civil partnerships for straight couples

enthusiasticsaver

I also dispute that marriage is not equal. No one has to take their husband's name, in fact I know of one husband who took his wife's as their child had her surname too and they all wanted the same name once they were married. People can choose which marriage traditions they want or not bother with any of them. I did not promise to obey my husband when we married in church 34 years ago. In what way is marriage not equal now?

coolcait

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

I also dispute that marriage is not equal. No one has to take their husband's name, in fact I know of one husband who took his wife's as their child had her surname too and they all wanted the same name once they were married. People can choose which marriage traditions they want or not bother with any of them. I did not promise to obey my husband when we married in church 34 years ago. In what way is marriage not equal now?

I haven't finished reading the full judgement, and don't have it open at the moment.

However, from memory, one of the many salient points made by the judge was (heavily paraphrased) that every couple in the UK now has the right to get married.

If any couple chooses not to get married, for ideological reasons, that is basically their own choice - not to avail themselves of the opportunity which exists.

It's not discrimination.

Which is pretty much the point made by quite a few people on the two threads about this topic recently.

barbiedoll

I'm glad that they lost the case, it's a frivolous action and one designed to undermine the legal benefits of marriage, as it currently stands.

All this guff about "patriarchy" and women being treated as possessions, is completely irrelevant in UK law today. UK women have fought long and hard to ensure equality, we can now divorce our spouses if we wish, we can buy our own property and marriage does not take away those rights. There is absolutely no need for CP's, they were implemented to ensure that same sex couples could have the legal protection of marriage, as marriage was not legal for them at the time.

I'm tired of hearing about couples who want the benefits of a legal union, but who won't commit to marriage. The latest noises about the bereavement benefit is another example of co-habiting couples wanting to have their cake and eat it. If they're so concerned about their children, should anything happen to their partner, then they should be more considerate and marry as soon as they can.

It's not like married couples get many monetary perks from the Government (unlike some co-habiting couples who manage to extract endless benefits because one of them won't admit to DWP that they actually live with their partner,) the bereavement benefit is one of very few that are exclusive to married people. The unwed can leave it alone, or they can marry and qualify for it.

What a waste of time and money. These two middle-class idiots, with their First World problem, should maybe try spending their time helping women who have no rights, no recourse to justice and no say in their choice of marriage partner.