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

BarryBlue · 27 June 2018 at 11:06PM

NBLondon wrote: »

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 So when that second stage appeared - that was the time to declare the CP as superseded and no longer open to new applicants; allowing those who had one to convert it or retain it as a legacy as they wished.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.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by 'obsoleting civil marriage'. There is only one type of marriage in the UK. It matters not one jot what trappings are attached, marriage is marriage and that's it.

In your last paragraph you seem to be suggesting that you should only be able to be married if it has a religious connection. Everyone else should have a civil partnership. Is that right or am I misunderstanding you?

If that is your suggestion, I think you are unfairly excluding the majority who choose not to involve religion in their marriage ceremonies. Far more reasonable to require all marriage ceremonies to take place at a register office, where religious reference is specifically excluded, and any optional trappings can take place afterwards.

Starrystarrynight1 · 28 June 2018 at 12:56AM

I'm with you, OP. I think it's all been a lot of fuss about nothing, really. I appreciate that the current law wasn't compatible with human rights laws hence the decision, but think civil partnerships should have been abolished when same-sex marriage was legalised.

The people who brought the action seem to have some sort of chip on their shoulder about marriage and yet they propose to have a civil partnership which affords exactly the same rights. You're legally joined together, you don't need to change any names etc etc. Talk of an 'alternative' form of marriage is just plain silly.

BrassicWoman · 28 June 2018 at 6:51AM

Why do you need to understand it, beyond it!!!8217;s not bothering you, and it makes other people happy?

indesisiv · 28 June 2018 at 8:32AM

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?

You are aware that only a quarter of marriages in the UK have anything to do with religion?

I wouldn't say that people are terrified of civil partnerships, its just the fact of why bring in something that is basically a substandard form of marriage. It was brought in as a stop gap until people had moved on enough to grant same sex couples the same rights as everyone else.

This historical stuff is all rubbish, most of the modern world couldn't give a stuff about what happened in the 1800's hence why there are so few church weddings. (And I would suggest that a fair few % of those church weddings are by people just wanting to splash the cash and make it look good)

pumpkin89 · 28 June 2018 at 9:02AM

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by 'obsoleting civil marriage'. There is only one type of marriage in the UK. It matters not one jot what trappings are attached, marriage is marriage and that's it.

That's not true. All marriages afford the same legal protections and obligations, but they are not based on the same declarations. If you get married in a Church of England, for example, the wording is very different from a registry office marriage - it may be legally equivalent, but what you are promising is not.

NBLondon · 28 June 2018 at 9:47AM

BarryBlue wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by 'obsoleting civil marriage'. There is only one type of marriage in the UK. It matters not one jot what trappings are attached, marriage is marriage and that's it.

I mean replacing the current civil (or "register office") marriage with a Civil Partnership as a way of updating the legal status. Which must include legislation to ensure any organisation (state or private) recognises it as such for tax, inheritance, spousal pension or whatever purposes - no discrimination. Ideally, also taking the opportunity to remove requirements about relatedness - there is no logical reason that adult siblings should not be civilly partnered.

{Of course, opening civil marriage to same-sex couples without introducing a new status would have been simpler...)

In your last paragraph you seem to be suggesting that you should only be able to be married if it has a religious connection. Everyone else should have a civil partnership. Is that right or am I misunderstanding you?

I think the term "married" now has so many different connotations for so many people that it should be separated from the legal definition and have no official meaning. Those who are religious can assign their own meanings to it if they want - whether that be the state religion or the Old Religion or whatever that couple's personal beliefs are. Which includes those who have been together for decades with no formal declaration at all if they wish to use the term.

Far more reasonable to require all marriage ceremonies to take place at a register office, where religious reference is specifically excluded, and any optional trappings can take place afterwards.

I have no problem with it being at any other venue accessible to the public and approved by the registrar ( I was "married" in a school library ) and it will be called a CP. But yes - the legal aspect as recognised by the state should have no religious aspect but be concerned with the solemn declarations and the participants being consenting adults not currently in any other legal joining.

That's actually the status in other countries as well - my parents were "Married" to each other twice; the legal ceremony was 2 days before the church wedding.

NBLondon · 28 June 2018 at 9:52AM

pumpkin89 wrote: »

That's not true. All marriages afford the same legal protections and obligations, but they are not based on the same declarations. If you get married in a Church of England, for example, the wording is very different from a registry office marriage - it may be legally equivalent, but what you are promising is not.

Hence I believe they should be separated; the agreement you make to each other and present to the state to get those protections is one thing; any promises made in the name of a deity are only relevant to those who believe.

hazyjo · 28 June 2018 at 10:30AM

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!

Thought it was much easier to separate - but on looking online, it seems just as bloody hard! I suppose when you have four failed marriages between us, you become a bit 'careful'!

Think we'll just continue to live in sin then!

Silvertabby · 28 June 2018 at 11:19AM

Kynthia wrote: »

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.

Exactly. Even if/when the rules are equalised, they may not, in common with many LGPS rules, be made retrospective to include those who had already ceased to be contributing members of the pension scheme (either as deferred members or pensioners in payment) before the date of the change.

Standing by for the first heterosexual couple to undergo a civil partnership (because they can) who then kick off big time because they don't have full civil service/LGPS/etc survivor pension benefits.

Fireflyaway · 28 June 2018 at 6:49PM

I suspect it's not even really about marriage but equality. If gay couples can have a civil ceremony then straight couples should be allowed it too. That's my guess. Civil marriage has been an option for donkeys years so they could do that if they don't want religious connotations. The fact they are making a fuss makes me think they are just wanting equality.

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

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free