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

Kynthia

Anyone older should check whether their DB pension pays different spousal benefits to civil partners. I think I remember something about the Classic scheme not taking into account service as far back. It's not always obvious in the booklets.

So I wonder what other differences there could be.

onomatopoeia99

europaea wrote: »

For me, wanting to be with someone and commitment does not equal marriage at all.

Nor to me, I have never understood the link that some people (especially on here and in the comment section of the Daily Mail website, it must be said) make between the two. I don't need a ring on my finger to be completely committed to another person.

Red-Squirrel_2

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Nor to me, I have never understood the link that some people (especially on here and in the comment section of the Daily Mail website, it must be said) make between the two. I don't need a ring on my finger to be completely committed to another person.

A ring is optional.

Marriage is a contract, the rest is fluff and can be done for CPs too or not for marriages.

NeilCr

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

A ring is optional.

Marriage is a contract, the rest is fluff and can be done for CPs too or not for marriages.

Genuinely. Why does it bother you and the others so much?

I think it's sensible to bring heterosexual relationships in line with the introduction of a CP. Quite a few people, it appears, want to have one and more power to their elbow. If it's the choice of both of them what's the issue? It's not affecting you or anyone else as far as I can see.

And many congratulations Mrs Ryan!

Red-Squirrel_2

NeilCr wrote: »

Genuinely. Why does it bother you and the others so much?

I think it's sensible to bring heterosexual relationships in line with the introduction of a CP. Quite a few people, it appears, want to have one and more power to their elbow. If it's the choice of both of them what's the issue? It's not affecting you or anyone else as far as I can see.

And many congratulations Mrs Ryan!

See my earlier post.

It makes me sick to see straight couples complaining about being discriminated against.

onomatopoeia99

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

It makes me sick to see straight couples complaining about being discriminated against.

Why? Do you think discrimination against a majority is acceptable?

Discrimination against different sex couples is no more acceptable than discrimination against same sex couples. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is never acceptable.

I've been a supporter (financially, I put my money where my mouth is) of an organization that campaigns against discrimination for almost 20 years, equality is one of my core political beliefs, and I don't see why discrimination is any more acceptable when it is against a majority rather than a minority.

Silvertabby

Kynthia wrote: »

Anyone older should check whether their DB pension pays different spousal benefits to civil partners. I think I remember something about the Classic scheme not taking into account service as far back. It's not always obvious in the booklets.

So I wonder what other differences there could be.

Kynthia is right. Only post April 1988 service counts towards co-habiting partners and civil partners survivor's pension benefits.

As far as I know, this applies to all public sector pension schemes (and possibly private DB schemes as well).

Yes, the rules could be changed in the future - but these types of changes are very rarely made retrospective. The usual condition is that the scheme member must have been an active, contributing, scheme member as at the date of the change, and not a deferred or pensioner member.

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

See my earlier post.

It makes me sick to see straight couples complaining about being discriminated against.

Suggest you get help.

Discrimination affects everyone, that’s the point.

Red-Squirrel_2

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Why? Do you think discrimination against a majority is acceptable?

Of course not, but they haven’t been discriminated against. At all.

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Of course not, but they haven’t been discriminated against. At all.

Your opinion is in stark contrast with the courts.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

If I paid my white employees more than everyone else just for being white, that’s discrimination. Same with gender, race, sexuality etc.