Civil partnerships for straight couples

heuchera

duchy wrote: »

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.

So what are the legal differences, then? I thought they were both the same in all but name.

Edit: have found a link.. they are both pretty much identical.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

missbiggles1

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.

Yep - that's what I meant about undermining marriage.:(

onlyroz

Surely the solution is to iron out the final few wrinkles of marriages, rather than to perpetuate an increasingly irrelevant institution such as the civil partnership?


The remaining issues seem to relate to the requirement to consummate a marriage, and the issue about putting the mother's details on the marriage certificate.


All the rest of the stuff, like wearing virginal white, referring to yourself as Mrs, being led down the aisle by your father, changing your surname etc etc are all entirely optional.

snowleopard61

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Yep - that's what I meant about undermining marriage.:(

But I'm completely in favour of marriage, and have no problem with the traditions and associations surrounding it (which, as has been said many times on this and the previous thread, are optional). The main reason I would wish to extend civil partnership is precisely that I do see marriage as something special (for want of a better word) and not to be undermined; civil partnership as purely pragmatic.

duchy

snowleopard61 wrote: »

But I'm completely in favour of marriage, and have no problem with the traditions and associations surrounding it (which, as has been said many times on this and the previous thread, are optional). The main reason I would wish to extend civil partnership is precisely that I do see marriage as something special (for want of a better word) and not to be undermined; civil partnership as purely pragmatic.

However society relies on stability and our economy and social structure is already undermined by the decline in stable unions.

Having a second class union that is more easily dissolved simply further destabilizes society.

As for the pensions -your rather selfish view that YOU don't mind paying more and to heck with anyone else who couldn't perhaps explains why you don't see the disadvantages as your opinions seem to be formed with solely concern for yourself and not the bigger picture in any shape or form.
Perhaps you advocate civil partnerships for people and their pets too as it would secure the financial security of your hamster. If that sounds ridiculous.....then why ? None of your reasons would exclude that scenario !

Presumably you and your lodger or hamster would also expect the same tax relief currently offered to married or CP couples........the economic problems that would raise are presumably also not relevant in your world !!!


(See I said I'd regret posting on this thread.....complete shortsightedness always irritates me !!)

tea_lover

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Yep - that's what I meant about undermining marriage.:(

I do see your point, but there does seem to be something unfair about the current system.

Two people* can marry, thereby gaining the associated benefits without any real thought about it, having pretty much just met.

However two siblings (to use an example) who may have lived together their whole lives aren't able to access the same.

*at least this is now two people regardless of gender, which is certainly a huge step forwards.

duchy

tea_lover wrote: »

I do see your point, but there does seem to be something unfair about the current system.

Two people* can marry, thereby gaining the associated benefits without any real thought about it, having pretty much just met.

However two siblings (to use an example) who may have lived together their whole lives aren't able to access the same.

*at least this is now two people regardless of gender, which is certainly a huge step forwards.

What would two siblings need to gain that isn't already available ?
If neither are married odds are they'd inherit anyway -private pensions in the unmarried can be nominated to specific people and power of attorney covers the rest. Surely people don't want non union CP just because they are too cheap to draw up a will ?

Where would children come in this ? If either CPer had children from a previous relationship would the CP over-ride their right to inherit if there was no will- for example. You could have two children lose their inheritance because a parent met and formed a CP within a fortnight of making a new friend - even though the parent entered the CP thinking it could be desolved if needs be - but died before they could do so.

It simply doesn't seem workable to have Civil partnerships without any union.

tea_lover

duchy wrote: »

What would two siblings need to gain that isn't already available ?

Inheritance tax differences are the big thing that spring to mind.

snowleopard61

duchy wrote: »

However society relies on stability and our economy and social structure is already undermined by the decline in stable unions.

Having a second class union that is more easily dissolved simply further destabilizes society.

As for the pensions -your rather selfish view that YOU don't mind paying more and to heck with anyone else who couldn't perhaps explains why you don't see the disadvantages as your opinions seem to be formed with solely concern for yourself and not the bigger picture in any shape or form.
Perhaps you advocate civil partnerships for people and their pets too as it would secure the financial security of your hamster. If that sounds ridiculous.....then why ? None of your reasons would exclude that scenario !

Presumably you and your lodger or hamster would also expect the same tax relief currently offered to married or CP couples........the economic problems that would raise are presumably also not relevant in your world !!!


(See I said I'd regret posting on this thread.....complete shortsightedness always irritates me !!)

I've already said that this doesn't affect me personally, in the sense that I have no wish to enter into a civil partnership - with my hamster or any other animal - and in fact I'm engaged to be married.

It's an odd response to suggest that it is selfish to be prepared to pay for something which solely benefits other people, and somehow more altruistic to object to doing so. FWIW I am by no means well off.

There is no reason in principle why a civil partnership should be more easily dissolved than a marriage, though the grounds for doing so in circumstances where there was no sexual or "romantic" element would need to be laid down.

If any given person is entitled to be in only one such relationship at a time, there is no reason why this should destabilise society, especially as it is likely to be fairly uncommon for people to want to commit themselves in this way in the circumstances mentioned.

snowleopard61

duchy wrote: »

Where would children come in this ? If either CPer had children from a previous relationship would the CP over-ride their right to inherit if there was no will- for example. You could have two children lose their inheritance because a parent met and formed a CP within a fortnight of making a new friend - even though the parent entered the CP thinking it could be desolved if needs be - but died before they could do so.

It simply doesn't seem workable to have Civil partnerships without any union.

Children could lose their inheritance because a parent had chosen to marry in haste, too. Most people are less likely to act impulsively in the context of a friendship (or a family relationship such as with a sibling) than in that of a sexual partnership.