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

Rubik

peachyprice wrote: »

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.

:T If I could send you more than one thank you for this comment, I would!

NBLondon

This debate has been going on for a few years. What it comes down to is that the Civil Partnership was introduced as an almost equivalent to a civil (register office) marriage for same-sex couples because many lobbyists and groups weren't ready to go the whole way and just open up the civil marriage to any gender combination. So when that second stage appeared - that was the time to declare the CP as superseded and no longer open to new applicants; allowing those who had one to convert it or retain it as a legacy as they wished.

Personally, I would have gone the other way and obsoleted the civil marriage and replaced it with a Civil Partnership open to all - with all living parents named, equivalent terms for dissolution, consistent legal protections which are binding on insurance companies, government depts, eemployers etc. So that you separate the legal aspects of a state-recognised union from the religious and social aspects.

I'd go further and say that you should only get the legal protections if you do the CP correctly - "marriage" alone to only be binding within the religion. You can still have the situation where a minister (rabbi, imam etc) is also a registrar and can do the appropriate legal stuff before or after the ceremony. Now that might cause some to point out that it would allow for a form of bigamy where one spouse has the state recognition and others have only the religious - but that is possible under current law anyway in some religions.

indesisiv

NBLondon wrote: »

I'd go further and say that you should only get the legal protections if you do the CP correctly - "marriage" alone to only be binding within the religion. You can still have the situation where a minister (rabbi, imam etc) is also a registrar and can do the appropriate legal stuff before or after the ceremony. Now that might cause some to point out that it would allow for a form of bigamy where one spouse has the state recognition and others have only the religious - but that is possible under current law anyway in some religions.

You are not married in law without the legal bits being done... that is what marriage is.
The religious bit is just like choosing to have flowers or not... its just an add on.

Kynthia

I wonder if there are more small differences than we aren't aware of? The civil service pension scheme also has different dates for spousal pension like the lgps does, although this will equalise over time.

Red-Squirrel_2

hazyjo wrote: »

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.

They’re basically the same though, what is the difference between marriage and civil partnership that means you would do one but not the other? Doesn’t make any sense!

System

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

They’re basically the same though, what is the difference between marriage and civil partnership that means you would do one but not the other? Doesn’t make any sense!

... and can you have both?

onomatopoeia99

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

They’re basically the same though, what is the difference between marriage and civil partnership that means you would do one but not the other? Doesn’t make any sense!

Religious overtones, weight of history and expectations, the "bl**dy church of England, in chains of history" (borrowed from Ian Anderson) claiming ownership of the "institution of marriage", even when it is conducted in a civil ceremony and the bishops blocking divorce law reform the house of lords.


Those are enough reasons for me.


Turn it on its head, why are people so terrified of the idea of different sex couples having the choice to have a civil partnership?

Tabbytabitha

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Religious overtones, weight of history and expectations, the "bl**dy church of England, in chains of history" (borrowed from Ian Anderson) claiming ownership of the "institution of marriage", even when it is conducted in a civil ceremony and the bishops blocking divorce law reform the house of lords.


Those are enough reasons for me.


Turn it on its head, why are people so terrified of the idea of different sex couples having the choice to have a civil partnership?

Why do you think that people who disagree with the idea are terrified of it?

Red-Squirrel_2

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Religious overtones, weight of history and expectations, the "bl**dy church of England, in chains of history" (borrowed from Ian Anderson) claiming ownership of the "institution of marriage", even when it is conducted in a civil ceremony and the bishops blocking divorce law reform the house of lords.


Those are enough reasons for me.


Turn it on its head, why are people so terrified of the idea of different sex couples having the choice to have a civil partnership?

Terrified? I just find it completely ludicrous and think these couples need to get over themselves and have a think about what real oppression and discrimination is.

theoretica

Civil partnerships may appeal to people who want the practical benefits of a union, but feel 'marriage' implies a personal relationship they don't have.