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

Mojisola

p00hsticks wrote: »

I think that the poster is pointing out that if the 'bride' had had a CP rather than a wedding, her mothers details would have been recorded on the certificate, which would be helpful to anyone researching peoples ancestry

It would be very easy for that change to be made to the marriage certificate - I can't understand why it hasn't been done.

coolcait

p00hsticks wrote: »

I think that the poster is pointing out that if the 'bride' had had a CP rather than a wedding, her mothers details would have been recorded on the certificate, which would be helpful to anyone researching peoples ancestry

Mojisola wrote: »

It would be very easy for that change to be made to the marriage certificate - I can't understand why it hasn't been done.

I don't understand either (why that change hasn't been made).

Scotland has had it for centuries. Other countries have also had it for generations.

Regardless of the whole Civil Partnerships issue - which I have commented on many times in the past - I don't understand why England and Wales (and maybe Northern Ireland) haven't flung in an amendment to that part of the Marriage Act long before now!

Tabbytabitha

p00hsticks wrote: »

I think that the poster is pointing out that if the 'bride' had had a CP rather than a wedding, her mothers details would have been recorded on the certificate, which would be helpful to anyone researching peoples ancestry

I appreciate that, I was just pointing out the anachronism of using the word "bride" for a female in a CP.

Fireflyaway

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

What are you on about? Bit Victor Meldrew over there!

Victor Meldrew is the best! Just found out he ( actor Richard Wilson) is gay.

bap98189

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Then perhaps you should be campaigning for adultery to be an acceptable reason for divorce as it is in straight marriage.

I'd rather there not be a requirement for a reason. "I don't want to be married to this person any longer" should be sufficient.

Tabbytabitha

bap98189 wrote: »

I'd rather there not be a requirement for a reason. "I don't want to be married to this person any longer" should be sufficient.

That's a valid reason for ending a relationship but a marriage is supposed to indicate a greater commitment or what's the point?

Mojisola

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

That's a valid reason for ending a relationship but a marriage is supposed to indicate a greater commitment or what's the point?

If someone has to be blamed for the marriage breaking down, it makes an amicable split more difficult.

Tabbytabitha

Mojisola wrote: »

If someone has to be blamed for the marriage breaking down, it makes an amicable split more difficult.

I think there's a difference between allocating blame and giving a reason. Plus, in the example that's being discussed (adultery) the parties involved are going to be aware of the "offender", even if that isn't the reason specified in the divorce. (Actually, that's going to be the case with many of the reasons why marriages split up, when you think about it.)

onomatopoeia99

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

I think there's a difference between allocating blame and giving a reason.

No, there isn't. Fault (which you can read as "blame" or "a reason") is a requirement in all divorces that take less than two years. It doesn't make the end of the relationship any easier if the law requires one party to declare the other to be at fault, or wait a long time.

There should be one year, no-fault, no-consent divorces, but when attempts to reform divorce law and introduce them are made, the Church of England bishops speak against them and block them in the house of lords. Even though posters here claim that it's possible to have marriage without religious involvement and that marriage is entirely split from the church.

Apart from in making the laws around it, then the established church still has plenty to say and plenty of influence.

coolcait

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

No, there isn't. Fault (which you can read as "blame" or "a reason") is a requirement in all divorces that take less than two years. It doesn't make the end of the relationship any easier if the law requires one party to declare the other to be at fault, or wait a long time.

There should be one year, no-fault, no-consent divorces, but when attempts to reform divorce law and introduce them are made, the Church of England bishops speak against them and block them in the house of lords. Even though posters here claim that it's possible to have marriage without religious involvement and that marriage is entirely split from the church.

Apart from in making the laws around it, then the established church still has plenty to say and plenty of influence.

Apart from adultery, the reasons for dissolution of a civil partnership are exactly the same as the reasons for divorce.

They're in a slightly different order, but they're still the same.

I suppose that adultery/infidelity would - for some people - come under the heading of one partner has behaved in such a way that the other partner "cannot reasonably be expected to live with" [him/her].