Civil partnerships for straight couples

arbroath_lass

missbiggles1 wrote: »

CPs were a temporary arrangement - you don't have temporary foundations.

I'm sure there a lot of temporary arrangements that have gone on far longer than someone intended.

Why haven't all gay couples "converted" their cp to a marriage if they are marriage is "better"?

barbarawright

heuchera wrote: »

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

There's no legal assumption that a civil partnership involves a sexual relationship.

arbroath_lass

I understood that, thanks. The second bit was an "add-on"

I answered a post that's gone now!

Ahh, I didn't mean temporary, sorry. I meant "not as good as".

missbiggles1

arbroath_lass wrote: »

I'm sure there a lot of temporary arrangements that have gone on far longer than someone intended.

Why haven't all gay couples "converted" their cp to a marriage if they are supposed to be temporary?

Some won't care (given that CPs offer virtually identical legal protection to marriage), some will have separated and, I expect, many are saving for the full monty wedding party that many straight couples choose.

(I didn't mean that the individual CP was temporary - just the concept.)

ETA

Unless things have changed, this may be the reason for many.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/23/gay-marriage-civil-partnership-conversion-process-couples

missbiggles1

arbroath_lass wrote: »

I understood that, thanks. The second bit was an "add-on"

I answered a post that's gone now!

Sorry, I started editing and the phone rang!

coolcait

tea_lover wrote: »

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

It's the inheritance tax legislation that needs to be changed - not the legislation around marriage and/or partnerships.

heuchera

barbarawright wrote: »

There's no legal assumption that a civil partnership involves a sexual relationship.

That is not correct either, though there are one or two minor quirks in the legalities. They are pretty much the same in all but name.

onomatopoeia99

barbarawright wrote: »

There's no legal assumption that a civil partnership involves a sexual relationship.

If there's no legal assumption of a sexual relationship, the law on prohibited degree of kinship would not apply to civil partnerships - it does. It is curious that it does apply, since a same sex couple can't procreate on their own, so the reason the law exsits (eugenics) is irrelevant.

Whether we should have laws in this country promoting eugenics, and drawn from a religious tract (the book of common prayer, 1662, was the original source for the list of prohibited relationships) is another debate.

missbiggles1

heuchera wrote: »

That is not correct either, though there are one or two minor quirks in the legalities. They are pretty much the same in all but name.

I think the main sexual difference is that you can't use adultery as the cause for dissolving the relationship.

missbiggles1

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

If there's no legal assumption of a sexual relationship, the law on prohibited degree of kinship would not apply to civil partnerships - it does. It is curious that it does apply, since a same sex couple can't procreate on their own, so the reason the law exsits (eugenics) is irrelevant.

Whether we should have laws in this country promoting eugenics, and drawn from a religious tract (the book of common prayer, 1662, was the original source for the list of prohibited relationships) is another debate.

I think it's a bit far fetched to equate laws against incest with eugenics.:(