Civil partnerships for straight couples

TonyMMM

duchy wrote: »

It's clear they will be - as politically it makes more sense to remove them from the statute than to extend them - in part because of the issues of people who want to use them to change tax and pension status for non union couples like friends and siblings. Why anyone would want to piggyback onto what is now rather an unfortunate reminder that we had such discriminatory attitudes so recently.

The government needs to have equal legislation - at present it is not equal as there is a second tier process that gives same sex couples advantages not open to non same sex couples so that needs to be addressed.

There are two choices - end CPs - everyone has the choice to marry or not marry. All married couples regardless of gender have exactly the same rights -so there is equality OR extend to all - which gives everyone two choices but ultimately duplicates most rights and leaves the door open for extension for people who don't want to make a commitment to each other but simply want the tax and inheritance advantages -and access to private pensions which were financially designed to provide for people in a genuine relationship. Private pensions (and life insurances) are designed to benefit couples -and costed to reflect this. Would you really want your private pension contributions doubled to accomadate everyone who wants a union be that flatmates, business partners , siblings etc.

The first solves the problem of equality between committed couples regardless of their sex - the second opens up a big mess and potential for loss of tax revenues and instability in the financial sector - a government would have to be insane to take the second option when the first satisfies the intent to have equality for all couples.

The dual sex union campaigners have done themselves no favours with the reasons they have given for wanting CP as they are completely focused on trying to claim maritial rights without marriage but can only give reasons like "We don't want to be called husband and wife as it places us into social boxes" which frankly is rubbish. Anyone who has lived a reasonably broad life socially knows that marriage is whatever the couple want it to be -and roles and attitudes depend on the couple and not because they have a marriage certificate instead of CP paperwork..

The campaigning couple appear to have very little life experience. The woman in the couple is a post grad student who has apparently not worked but lived her adult life so far in academia in London- and complains that marriage would lock her and her partner into gender defined roles. It's all academic nonsense and nothing to do with how life is actually lived by the majority. What seems to escape this couple is that it really doesn't matter if they live over the brush , marry or have a CP (if they could) THEY are the ones who define any gender bias in their relationship not society. We don't live in the 1950s and women are no longer to give up work when they marry and stay home.

CP won't change anything - some people have very equal non gender led roles - others prefer more traditional roles - people will do what suits them and having CP won't change that. "I don't want to be called a wife" Not sure how CP will change that- I know gay men with CP's who refer to their partner as their husband and gay women who call their partner their wife - so CP isn't going to change those titles- some people will want to be called partner and some will want the spousal title regardless - I know a married women who always refers to her husband as her partner too. Having CP or not isn't going to change how people refer to themselves regardless of what is legally accurate.

If CP genuinely gave equality I'd be all for it - but it simply doesn't. It was stop gap legislation until gay marriage got onto the statutue - now it has it's time to get rid of what was essentially second class marriage for gay couples and a shameful reminder that our nation was so slow in giving equal marriage rights .

An excellent summing up of the situation - the introduction of CP was a halfway attempt to address the issue that was never really thought through.

The introduction of same sex marriage has sorted that out - the only sensible (and affordable) option now is to stop offering civil partnerships.

I know in my own area (from a registrar friend) that the number of CPs carried out since the introduction of same sex marriage is in low single figures - she couldn't actually remember the last one they did.

barbarawright

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.

What is not correct about my statement? The key difference between civil partnership and marriage is that there is no legal assumption that civil partners are in a sexual relationships. This has obvious implications for those investigating marriages/partnerships of convenience for immigration purposes and also makes civil partnerships appropriate for close friends who may wish to ensure a housemates inheritance rights

DigForVictory

There was an article on marriage, partnership & other genuine choices in the economist - which showed several countries roll relationships into some kind of formal agreement after a time period to protect children & any assets. Me, I like marriage but if there are those who refuse? For the safety of any child, something else needs to be an option.

The common law marriage is a blinking unsafe fantasy & the quicker it's replaced with some real alternative the better.

My heart goes out to the poor bloke whose husband died on honeymoon in an area that didn't recognise him as married.

duchy

DigForVictory wrote: »

There was an article on marriage, partnership & other genuine choices in the economist - which showed several countries roll relationships into some kind of formal agreement after a time period to protect children & any assets. Me, I like marriage but if there are those who refuse? For the safety of any child, something else needs to be an option.

.

In what way do you feel children are not currently protected in Britain ?

You can still claim child support for an illegitimate child
Illegitimate children have equal rights of inheritance

Assets can actually be better protected legally by NOT marrying

I'm not sure I understand your point.

As said earlier - if you want the legal protection that marriage offers -get married . It's a bit like saying "I want my family to have enough money to pay off the mortgage if I die but I refuse to take out life insurance" If you want the protection - you need to participate.

Just as Ms I don't want to take out life insurance could ensure the money is there to pay off the mortgage by having that money available by other ways than insurance-like savings -so can the unmarried protect assets with legal agreements. We have choices - just not "pick and mix" when it comes to marriage.

People refuse to do all sorts of things that would benefit them - it doesn't mean we need to change the law just because they are short sighted and can't see the benefits they are rejecting.

gayleygoo

My OH would prefer a civil-ceremony for us to get "married", because of its historical affiliation with the Church and ownership of women. I think a civil-ceremony should be available to all, because if it was ever intended for it to mean anything at all, then it should have been made available to all in the first place. However, I'd rather get married if it's that or nothing at all!

In N.Ireland, our backward politicians are still rejecting the notion of same-sex couples getting married, so we are still a long way from equality here. There are venues that will allow traditional religious ceremonies to take place on their premises, but not a civil ceremony, simply because they don't want same-sex couples having their vows there.

duchy

Registry office ceremonies ARE Civil ceremonies - They aren't allowed to mention religion or God .

Taking the other view a registry office ceremony could be considered as cocking a snook at the tradition that marriage had to be in a church with the traditional add ons - and that marriage today is a celebration of the victory that marriage is now inclusive in terms of gender , race, religion and that women are equal partners and not chattels. It never ceases to amaze me how many feminists take the "it was oppressive" view rather than the " We need to participate in this wonderful equal venture that so many people battled to transform and celebrate their achievement"

Of course you could always go to Vegas - get Elvis to marry you at a drive through window - and then just have the marriage registered when you get back to Britain. It'd be legal but not include anything of wedding tradition and have the advantage of complete tackiness too

gayleygoo wrote: »

My OH would prefer a civil-ceremony for us to get "married", because of its historical affiliation with the Church and ownership of women. I think a civil-ceremony should be available to all, because if it was ever intended for it to mean anything at all, then it should have been made available to all in the first place. However, I'd rather get married if it's that or nothing at all!

In N.Ireland, our backward politicians are still rejecting the notion of same-sex couples getting married, so we are still a long way from equality here. There are venues that will allow traditional religious ceremonies to take place on their premises, but not a civil ceremony, simply because they don't want same-sex couples having their vows there.

Mojisola

gayleygoo wrote: »

I think a civil-ceremony should be available to all, because if it was ever intended for it to mean anything at all, then it should have been made available to all in the first place.

It is - check out your local RO.

onlyroz

barbarawright wrote: »

What is not correct about my statement? The key difference between civil partnership and marriage is that there is no legal assumption that civil partners are in a sexual relationships. This has obvious implications for those investigating marriages/partnerships of convenience for immigration purposes and also makes civil partnerships appropriate for close friends who may wish to ensure a housemates inheritance rights

Wouldn't it be better to modify marriage to remove the assumption that the relationship is sexual?

missbiggles1

barbarawright wrote: »

What is not correct about my statement? The key difference between civil partnership and marriage is that there is no legal assumption that civil partners are in a sexual relationships. This has obvious implications for those investigating marriages/partnerships of convenience for immigration purposes and also makes civil partnerships appropriate for close friends who may wish to ensure a housemates inheritance rights

I'm not sure whether you're putting this forward a a positive or a negative.

missbiggles1

onlyroz wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better to modify marriage to remove the assumption that the relationship is sexual?

To you need to modify something that's only based on an assumption?