Civil partnerships for straight couples

duchy

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

I have no interest in "undermining marriage", that would be particularly obtuse of me since I campaigned for equal marriage! But doubtless someone will come along and tell me that by supporting extending marriage to more couples, I wanted to undermine marriage :rotfl:.

I don't believe you are but I do believe this couple are. (and that was my impression of what Miss B was saying too)

Many years ago I took a job and later discovered I was replacing a gay man who had perished on the Marchioness . His partner had no say or rights afterwards and the parents apparently wouldn't allow him any involvement - it made a desperately sad situation even worse. For me that was when I realized just how much we needed full equality seeing the reality rather than just discussing it in general terms with my gay friends.

Mojisola

There are only two things that need to be said for a legal wedding (there are slightly different ways they can be phrased) -

"I declare that I know of no legal reason why I (your name) may not be joined in marriage to (your partner's name)."

"I (your full name), take you (your partner's full name) to be my wedded wife/husband."

Rather than set up civil partnerships in addition to marriage, why not give couples the option to use the word "partnership" instead of "marriage" and "partner" instead of "wife/husband".

It's long overdue that both parents' names are given on the certificate - it would certainly have made researching my family history a lot easier!

heuchera

A lot of the arguing is just about semantics anyway. Civil partnership is the same as marriage, as I said earlier.

duchy

heuchera wrote: »

A lot of the arguing is just about semantics anyway. Civil partnership is the same as marriage, as I said earlier.

If civil partnership is the same as marriage why do you think civil partnership wasn't good enough and gay marriage became possible ?

There are legal differences between the two.
CP does not confer the same legal rights as marriage.......some yes- all no.

snowleopard61

I don’t (to say the least) share the views of the couple in question, and it doesn’t affect me personally, but I would like to see the right to civil partnerships extended to any two people who wish to enter into one, including those who are not presumed to be in any romantic or sexual relationship - e.g. siblings or friends who live together for companionship – provided that neither of them is in a marriage or civil partnership with anyone else.

This would provide a straightforward way for people to grant legal rights to any one person of their choice in matters of property or decision-making in difficult medical situations. It seems practical and sensible to me.

duchy

snowleopard61 wrote: »

I don’t (to say the least) share the views of the couple in question, and it doesn’t affect me personally, but I would like to see the right to civil partnerships extended to any two people who wish to enter into one, including those who are not presumed to be in any romantic or sexual relationship - e.g. siblings or friends who live together for companionship – provided that neither of them is in a marriage or civil partnership with anyone else.

This would provide a straightforward way for people to grant legal rights to any one person of their choice in matters of property or decision-making in difficult medical situations. It seems practical and sensible to me.

Isn't that called power of attorney and already available ?

LannieDuck

TonyMMM wrote: »

Assuming your marriage was more than a couple of years ago then the wording was required because (rightly or wrongly) that was the law at the time - since the introduction of same sex marriage the official wording has been changed to "marriage is the union of two people....."

There is no requirement to include father's details on the marriage register if you don't want to - and there is a legal change currently going through to include mother's details anyway.

It was 2010. I understood that was the law at the time, and we had no alternatives. I was just saying that I would have chosen Civil Partnership had I had the choice.

I wasn't aware that I could choose not to enter my father's details. And I'm very pleased that the legal change will be going through

snowleopard61

duchy wrote: »

Isn't that called power of attorney and already available ?

I'm no expert, but I wouldn't have thought it was quite the same - AFAIK power of attorney applies when the person who's granted it is alive but incapable in some way, whereas the legal benefits of marriage or civil partnership apply after one party's death as well. It just seems more of a one-stop way of achieving various different objects.

duchy

snowleopard61 wrote: »

I'm no expert, but I wouldn't have thought it was quite the same - AFAIK power of attorney applies when the person who's granted it is alive but incapable in some way, whereas the legal benefits of marriage or civil partnership apply after one party's death as well. It just seems more of a one-stop way of achieving various different objects.

I really don't understand what you mean - you said......

This would provide a straightforward way for people to grant legal rights to any one person of their choice in matters of property or decision-making in difficult medical situations. It seems practical and sensible to me.

What other rights do you think your "one stop" process needs?

If the person is unavailable through ill health or absence then power of attorney works so what do you imagine CP gives in addition ?

Furthermore CP gives rights to inheritance and (some) pensions- these would 1 Not always be appropriate and 2 Increase pension costs dramatically across the board, life insurance too .

Not sure I want to pay more pension costs for any tom !!!! or harry someone takes it into their head to nominate rather than someone they have made a lifelong commitment to.

snowleopard61

duchy wrote: »

I really don't understand what you mean - you said......

This would provide a straightforward way for people to grant legal rights to any one person of their choice in matters of property or decision-making in difficult medical situations. It seems practical and sensible to me.

What other rights do you think your "one stop" process needs?

If the person is unavailable through ill health or absence then power of attorney works so what do you imagine CP gives in addition ?

Furthermore CP gives rights to inheritance and (some) pensions- these would 1 Not always be appropriate and 2 Increase pension costs dramatically across the board, life insurance too .

Not sure I want to pay more pension costs for any tom !!!! or harry someone takes it into their head to nominate rather than someone they have made a lifelong commitment to.

It is exactly the rights of inheritance and pensions you refer to that I mean, and I have no similar objection.