Civil partnerships: Law to be changed for mixed-sex couples

Gavin83

Surely the answer would have been to just scrap civil partnerships once homosexual couples were allowed to marry. They served a purpose, times have moved on and they're no longer necessary.

Rubik

Gavin83 wrote: »

Surely the answer would have been to just scrap civil partnerships once homosexual couples were allowed to marry. They served a purpose, times have moved on and they're no longer necessary.

^^^^ this would have been the sensible solution.

phryne

Mojisola wrote: »

Some people don't want to be legally husband and wife because of the historical patriarchal links to those words.

Oh. Right on, Sister.

phryne

Rubik wrote: »

^^^^ this would have been the sensible solution.

Sort of, but people who were in a civil partnership might not want to be 'married'.

Too many choices. And mainly to appease groups of people who due to a certain victim mentality are very hard to appease at the best of times.

Red-Squirrel_2

Mojisola wrote: »

Some people don't want to be legally husband and wife because of the historical patriarchal links to those words.

Thereby undermining all the work done by women’s and gay rights campaigners over decades to turn into the egalitarian contract it is today.

Those poor straight couples, so oppressed for so long. Oh, wait...

onomatopoeia99

Rubik wrote: »

CP are a bit of an insult to same sex couples IMO

Yet even though they are an insult, approximately 20% of new legal unions between same sex couples since equal marriage was introduced have been civil partnerships.

That's enough to be significant and enough not to dismiss them all as "snowflakes".

Rubik

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Yet even though they are an insult, approximately 20% of new legal unions between same sex couples since equal marriage was introduced have been civil partnerships.

That's enough to be significant and enough not to dismiss them all as "snowflakes".

Meaning that a whopping 80% have chosen marriage. Which suggests that people when given the choice would chose marriage, rather than a CP.

and erm...I haven't dismissed anyone as a "snowflake".

TonyMMM

Mojisola wrote: »

In a Register Office wedding, you don't need to make any vows at all.

Yes you do .... there are two legally required vows. One is declaratory (confirming your name and that you are free to marry) and one is contractual (confirming, in front of witnesses, that you take the other person as your husband/wife).

Each has a number of legally approved variations of wording to suit most people.

You don't have to have any other vows/rings or any other "marriage" traditions.

The government intention when this became an issue was that civil partnerships would be withdrawn completely leaving marriage as an option for all couples ( preparations were well in hand for this), but I suspect the government has other things occupying its time at the moment and they would rather not start another battle over this, so are taking the easier option.

Comms69

Mojisola wrote: »

The couple will be legal partners but not husband and wife.

Some people don't want to be legally husband and wife because of the historical patriarchal links to those words.

I agree some people do have a totally warped sense of reality, supporting that is obviously the answer.

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Thereby undermining all the work done by women’s and gay rights campaigners over decades to turn into the egalitarian contract it is today.

Those poor straight couples, so oppressed for so long. Oh, wait...

You're right straight couples have had it rosy for millennia.

Mojisola

phryne wrote: »

Oh. Right on, Sister.

I didn't say that was my view - I've been happily married for years!