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

pollypenny

With all the problems and issues in the world, this couple decide to fight for a Civil Partnership?

What is wrong with a registry office splicing?

MPD

Discrimination in all forms is one of the major problems in this world, this couple should be applauded for fighting it.

Tabbytabitha

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.

I think many people are against divorce being that easy, not just those with religious qualms. If you want to be able to walk away from a shortish relationship with no good reason then probably better that you don't get married in the first place.

onomatopoeia99

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

I think many people are against divorce being that easy, not just those with religious qualms. If you want to be able to walk away from a shortish relationship with no good reason then probably better that you don't get married in the first place.

So? If they want a divorce then they could still do it with fault or a long wait. Introducing an easy, one year no-fault divorce won't affect them or their marriages at all. Having the option on the table doesn't mean everyone is obliged to use it.

Tabbytabitha

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

So? If they want a divorce then they could still do it with fault or a long wait. Introducing an easy, one year no-fault divorce won't affect them or their marriages at all. Having the option on the table doesn't mean everyone is obliged to use it.

Changes to the laws around marriage affect everybody who's married or planning to be so, regardless of whether they use those new laws themselves.

MrsStepford

Heterosexual opposite gender couples, mixed heterosexual and bisexual opposite gender couples and bisexual opposite gender couples were always able to marry.

Gay male couples, mixed gay/bisexual male couples, lesbian couples and lesbian/bisexual female couples were only able to have civil partnerships at first but can now choose a civil partnership or marriage.

Not everyone wants a marriage, even a civil one. They just want state recognition of their relationship.

The court case will hopefully push government into extending civil partnerships. This would mean that heterosexual opposite gender couples can choose religious and civil marriage or a simpler state recognition.

It might in time, make the position better legally, for children born 'out of wedlock' and also for couples splitting up.

Another anomaly is the treatment of bisexuals. An opposite sex bisexual couple have the option of religious or civil marriage only. A same sex bisexual couple has the options of religious or civil marriage plus civil partnership also. A same sex lesbian/ bisexual couple has the three options. An opposite sex heterosexual/bisexual couple has religious or civil marriage options only.

The idea behind equal marriage was LGBT equality. Bisexuals make up the biggest part of the LGBT community but only receive equality depending on the gender and sexuality of their partner. That doesn't seem fair. Opening up civil partnerships to opposite gender couples would change that. Everyone would be able to choose between religious or civil marriage and civil partnerships.

There are people who don't marry, because they don't like the whole patriarchal thing of bride being given away by father. Others don't choose marriage because even a civil marriage is a marriage and they are atheists.

I'm in favour of extending civil partnerships. That way, regardless of the gender or sexuality of our partner, we ALL have equal choices.

Tabbytabitha

MrsStepford wrote: »

Heterosexual opposite gender couples, mixed heterosexual and bisexual opposite gender couples and bisexual opposite gender couples were always able to marry.

Gay male couples, mixed gay/bisexual male couples, lesbian couples and lesbian/bisexual female couples were only able to have civil partnerships at first but can now choose a civil partnership or marriage.

Not everyone wants a marriage, even a civil one. They just want state recognition of their relationship.

The court case will hopefully push government into extending civil partnerships. This would mean that heterosexual opposite gender couples can choose religious and civil marriage or a simpler state recognition.

It might in time, make the position better legally, for children born 'out of wedlock' and also for couples splitting up.

Another anomaly is the treatment of bisexuals. An opposite sex bisexual couple have the option of religious or civil marriage only. A same sex bisexual couple has the options of religious or civil marriage plus civil partnership also. A same sex lesbian/ bisexual couple has the three options. An opposite sex heterosexual/bisexual couple has religious or civil marriage options only.

The idea behind equal marriage was LGBT equality. Bisexuals make up the biggest part of the LGBT community but only receive equality depending on the gender and sexuality of their partner. That doesn't seem fair. Opening up civil partnerships to opposite gender couples would change that. Everyone would be able to choose between religious or civil marriage and civil partnerships.

There are people who don't marry, because they don't like the whole patriarchal thing of bride being given away by father. Others don't choose marriage because even a civil marriage is a marriage and they are atheists.

I'm in favour of extending civil partnerships. That way, regardless of the gender or sexuality of our partner, we ALL have equal choices.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

NBLondon

Heterosexual opposite gender couples, mixed heterosexual and bisexual opposite gender couples and bisexual opposite gender couples were always able to marry.

As were homosexual opposite gender couples and mixed heterosexual/homosexual opposite gender couples - they just didn't necessarily announce who they preferred to exchange bodily fluids with...

I agree with you that opening up Civil Partnership to all as a form of state recognition is the logical way forward but I have to question...

Bisexuals make up the biggest part of the LGBT community

Really? I always assumed it was Gay Men - but I suppose that could be because they are the most visible and vocal subset. Or rather a subset of Gay Men are most vocal about it.

but only receive equality depending on the gender and sexuality of their partner.

That's stretching it a bit... Gender - Yes; Sexuality - Not really. Unless you are challenging a "marriage" on grounds of non-consummation or adultery. It is perfectly possible for two unrelated persons of the same legal gender to undergo a civil partnership for the legal protections - irrespective of their bedroom preferences.

NBLondon

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Depends if you accept that the very word "marriage" has implications and connotations of religion for some people. It's the flip side of those who claimed that allowing same-sex couples to marry would devalue existing marriages.

Loz01

pollypenny wrote: »

With all the problems and issues in the world, this couple decide to fight for a Civil Partnership?

What is wrong with a registry office splicing?

Then they wouldn't have been on TV, in the newspaper, shouting to the world! It's about look at me me me. Any normal, sane person would've paid 50 quid and got married in front of 2 random witnesses at the registry office but these two bores had to make into a huge deal.