Heterosexual Couple Win Court Case for Civil Partnership. I don't understand it.

pumpkin89

@indesisiv you're right, but it's a big mess to resolve now as people in a Civil Partnership have not consented to being married, so you can't simply replace them.

I don't personally understand why anyone would choose a Civil Partnership over a marriage, but because I have such a strong preference for marriage I can appreciate that there is a difference, notwithstanding the legal similarity.

onomatopoeia99

catkins wrote: »

Pathetic couple wasting the Court's time.

Are you suggesting it is "pathetic" to seek legal redress for discrimination of the grounds of sexual orientation?

indesisiv

pumpkin89 wrote: »

@indesisiv you're right, but it's a big mess to resolve now as people in a Civil Partnership have not consented to being married, so you can't simply replace them.

You don't have to remove the Civil Partnerships that there already are, you just make them a legacy thing.

TonyMMM

All through this court process, and because they knew the case would probably go against them, the government have been considering the simple option of just removing the option for any future civil partnerships, thereby restoring full equality (although existing partnerships would remain valid if the couple choose not to have a conversion to marriage).

Not sure they will do it though - and may just take the easy route of opening up CPs to all .

hazyjo

I'd happily enter a civil partnership with my OH. We have each been married twice before and have absolutely no desire to do it again.


We are committed to each other and would like our relationship recognised. I hate just feeling like he's 'my BF'. I've been with him for longer than both my marriages put together. 'BF' just has no clout really. I'm not really sure what he'd be called if we did have a civil partnership. My 'civil partner' maybe?!


Anyway, haven't read the article (gotta dash for an hour and half) but have followed case previously.

Iva_Hugh_Jarce

Rubik wrote: »

Civil partnerships were introduced as a way for same sex couples to have a state recognised union that afforded them the benefits of marriage, at the time the powers that be thought the Uk wasn't ready to extend marriage to same sex couples. Thankfully we now have marriage equality, and couples (both opposite and same sex) can now marry in church (other houses of worship are available) and have a religious element to their marriage - or marry in a register office/other venue where religion plays no part in the ceremony. Civil partnerships in their original and intended format are now redundant.

The couple who bought the case to the Supreme court disagree with marriage as they feel is is patriarchal and oppresses women but they wanted a state recognised union without the alleged misogynistic and religious trappings of marriage. And they were right in that the CPA does discriminate against opposite sex couples, the irony is that the CPA was there to try to address the discrimination same sex couples were subjected to when it came to obtaining a state recognised union.......
Personally I feel that this couple have entirely missed the point of civil partnerships.

Not in all regions of the UK

Loz01

Let them have their "less than" version of marriage that same sex couples were subjected to for years before the country finally decided it was ok for them to actually marry properly. Why you would campaign for this is beyond me.

What a waste of court time. If thats all they've got to worry about then they need to give their head a wobble.

Rubik

Iva_Hugh_Jarce wrote: »

Not in all regions of the UK

Northern Ireland is a separate jurisdiction. Im assuming you are referring to NI?

peachyprice

Scorpio33 wrote: »

I think the issue is that some people see "Marriage" = Married in a church. OK, technically there is no basis for this, but as churches only do marriages and not civil partnerships, so I can understand why there is a close connection between the word "marriage" and the church.

So if you wanted to get "married", but were anti-religion, a Civil Partnership seems a good compromise?

Surely its about choice - they do not want to be "Married" as they are anti-religion?

Nope, not so. You have been able to have a civil ceremony since 1854, this by law, must have absolutely no religious elements and is performed by a registrar.

A civil partnership was an insult to gay couples, a way to keep them quite until marriage became legal. Why anyone would want something that is nothing but a bigoted pacifier a is beyond me.

BarryBlue

Scorpio33 wrote: »

I think the issue is that some people see "Marriage" = Married in a church. OK, technically there is no basis for this, but as churches only do marriages and not civil partnerships, so I can understand why there is a close connection between the word "marriage" and the church.

So if you wanted to get "married", but were anti-religion, a Civil Partnership seems a good compromise?

Surely its about choice - they do not want to be "Married" as they are anti-religion?

If you want to get married and you are anti-religion, there are many options, whether it be a register office or any number of licensed premises of all descriptions. Only a minority of marriages now are conducted in a religious premises.

Nobody is more anti-religion than me, yet I am married. There is only one status of marriage and religion is irrelevant to it. No need for a compromise at all.

Civil partnerships were always a cop-out to pacify the church. But we have moved on now that same sex marriage is legal, so they serve little purpose. However, while they exist they should be available to all or it is discrimination.