Civil partnerships for straight couples

Tigsteroonie

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

Wonder what they would do if the law of unintended consequences kicked in and if the authorities got rid of cp what these people would do then?

Then we wouldn't have a choice.

But we also wouldn't have an obvious imbalance in the options.

Yolina

In France, the PACS, which is the equivalent of the civil partnership here, has been available to straight couples from the start. My mum and her OH, both retired, went for that several years ago over getting married as it's far simpler to organise (anyone who's had to deal with French bureaucracy will understand :rotfl: )

lexia

Yes they should. It exists in other countries and it works fine - for example in Canada, common law partnerships.

onomatopoeia99

Discrimination is never right. I hope they win.

missbiggles1

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Discrimination is never right. I hope they win.

No discrimination involved if civil parterships are withdrawn for everybody - as is very likely.

duchy

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Discrimination is never right. I hope they win.

I hope they don't.

It's completely stupid and undermines both marriage and choosing not to marry with their silly posturing .

They wouldn't recognize true equality if it bit them on the bum

coolcait

I contributed to the previous thread on this topic, so my views on a number of the issues are already on record - including my agreement that PACS is a way to commit without having to commit.

Not to mention the fact that I don't understand why people who reject marriage because of its 'patriarchal' connotations don't seem to have the any issues with Civil Partnership legislation.

A piece of legislation which is a shameful reminder of a time when our society and government effectively treated same sex couples as second class citizens. To the extent that the legislation allowing them to form a legally recognised alliance couldn't be called 'Marriage', and had to come up with a woolly non-marriage name. Like 'Civil Partnership'.

Thankfully, our society and governments have finally given same sex couples the right to marry.

With that in mind, same sex couples are finally on an equal footing with opposite sex couples. There is no need for the Civil Partnership legislation, with all its echoes of an unenlightened past.

Having looked at the reasons why the judicial review couple - and others - don't want to be married under current legislation, those could be addressed by amending the existing marriage legislation.

If the marriage paperwork requires the father's name for ID purposes, then it should include the names of both parents of the bride and groom.

If it's not needed for ID purposes, then there is no need for any details of either or the bride or groom's parents, unless either party of the happy couple is so young that parental consent is required for the marriage to take place.

Re-name the legislation as 'The Marriage (Civil and Religious) Act 2016. Incorporate the relevant parts of the two existing Marriage Acts. Repeal the Civil Partnership Act.

Keep the existing statutory declarations, which refer to marriage, and husband and wife, and then add (a) new statutory declaration(s) referring to 'civil union' and 'partner'.

Both marriage and civil union would be available to same sex and opposite sex couples. Both marriage and civil union would have the same legal effect.

The only difference would be the form of words chosen by each individual couple.

All the other trappings like white meringue dresses, bridesmaids, best man, ushers, speeches, being given away, bell money, going away outfits, decorating cars, flowers, honeymoon, hen nights, stag nights and anything else that I've missed are traditions, customs, and excuses for a good !!!!-up.

They're not law. Each couple can choose which (if any) of the traditions they want to follow. And ignore all the others.

Lily-Rose_3

duchy wrote: »

I hope they don't.

It's completely stupid and undermines both marriage and choosing not to marry with their silly posturing .

They wouldn't recognize true equality if it bit them on the bum

I agree! :T:T:T

If you really really want the same 'rights' and 'equality' as married couples have, then GET MARRIED!

Otherwise, just shut the fluff up moaning. These people must lead such blessed lives if this is all they have to gripe about.

POPPYOSCAR

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Discrimination is never right. I hope they win.

As do I........

coolcait

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Discrimination is never right. I hope they win.

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

As do I........

I agree that discrimination is never right.

The very existence of 'Civil Partnership' legislation lies in the fact that same sex couples were discriminated against.

To the extent that even the genuinely groundbreaking Civil Partnership legislation was still a poor imitation of the legal rights enjoyed by opposite sex couples for generations.

The Civil Partnership legislation was the closest approximation to same sex marriage that the government/society felt able to achieve last decade.

Although it was well-intentioned, it's still legislation which has its roots in discrimination.

It does boggle me that opposite sex couples, who have had the right to marry for generations - a right which same sex couples have had to fight for, accepting half-hearted legislation like civil Partnerships along the way - now want to co-opt that same half-hearted legislation.

Marriage is now - finally, rightly and thankfully - available to same sex couples.

If anything shows that 'marriage' has evolved away from the patriarchal - for those who wish marry without the patriarchal or pseudo-patriarchal trappings - it is the existence of legally recognised marriage between two people of the same gender.

If opposite sex couples want to lobby for legislation which allows them to marry without ever having to use the word 'marry', or 'wife' or 'husband', then let them go for it.

But not by demanding that we keep a shameful piece of legislation, which gave part of our society half-hearted rights instead of the rights they would have received if they'd belonged to another group in society.