Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • anotheruser
    • By anotheruser 27th Jun 18, 11:32 AM
    • 2,637Posts
    • 1,552Thanks
    anotheruser
    Heterosexual Couple Win Court Case for Civil Partnership. I don't understand it.
    • #1
    • 27th Jun 18, 11:32 AM
    Heterosexual Couple Win Court Case for Civil Partnership. I don't understand it. 27th Jun 18 at 11:32 AM
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44627990

    I don't understand this at all and would love to, but I just can't see what it's all about.

    Marriage and a Civil Partnership are the same thing essentially. They allow each person to declare they are together and have the same legal rights. From what I understand gay couples can't get married in a church, so a Civil Partnership was created for gay couples to have the same rights as married couples. That's great.

    So, the couple in the article suggest that marriage refers to women being property.
    Where is this said in a marriage ceremony at a church? Or, assuming this couple would have a registry office marriage, at a secular ceremony?

    It may have been like that in the past but that's not where we are as people now. Even the last 50 years, women haven't really been seen as property like in the 1700s or 1800s.

    Yes, we still have a long way to go but I just don't understand why people over think things like this when it's not that difficult to understand. So I'm not sure where their kids are going to think that women are property. I mean, kids these days barely know about the World Wars and poppies!

    But I guess I'll sling them into the same pile of people where that women is who doesn't want to give her child a gender because she wants it (the child) to decide whether it wants to be a boy or a girl.

    Just don't understand this or what the people are thinking.
Page 5
    • Loz01
    • By Loz01 6th Jul 18, 11:12 AM
    • 1,657 Posts
    • 3,739 Thanks
    Loz01
    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?
    Originally posted by pollypenny
    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.
    The fact is that more people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, THAT my friends, is true perversion - Harvey Milk
    • BrassicWoman
    • By BrassicWoman 6th Jul 18, 11:47 AM
    • 1,870 Posts
    • 7,486 Thanks
    BrassicWoman
    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.
    Originally posted by Loz01
    It matters to them, and they aren't impacting your life in the slightest. Just turn off the telly.
    Jan 18 grocery challenge £105.13/ £150
    • Tabbytabitha
    • By Tabbytabitha 6th Jul 18, 12:15 PM
    • 4,383 Posts
    • 6,972 Thanks
    Tabbytabitha
    It matters to them, and they aren't impacting your life in the slightest. Just turn off the telly.
    Originally posted by BrassicWoman
    Any changes to society, its formalities and customs affect us all because we're all part of society. It's like arguing that bringing back capital punishment wouldn't affect you because you aren't going to murder anyone.
    • Loz01
    • By Loz01 6th Jul 18, 2:53 PM
    • 1,657 Posts
    • 3,739 Thanks
    Loz01
    It matters to them, and they aren't impacting your life in the slightest. Just turn off the telly.
    Originally posted by BrassicWoman
    If it mattered to them to get married, they would've done it. If they didnt want to be married..... dont do it. Just co habit whatever its called. Get a will made so you can cover issues that unmarried couples might face if something happened to one of them.

    If they really feel that strongly they want a CP (a shitty less than version of marriage that same sex couples were fobbed off with for years by a weak government) then they didnt have to take their "plight" to national TV and cheer outside a courtroom as if you've marked a day in history.
    The fact is that more people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, THAT my friends, is true perversion - Harvey Milk
    • Senseicads
    • By Senseicads 6th Jul 18, 3:28 PM
    • 135 Posts
    • 93 Thanks
    Senseicads
    If it mattered to them to get married, they would've done it. If they didnt want to be married..... dont do it. Just co habit whatever its called. Get a will made so you can cover issues that unmarried couples might face if something happened to one of them.

    If they really feel that strongly they want a CP (a shitty less than version of marriage that same sex couples were fobbed off with for years by a weak government) then they didnt have to take their "plight" to national TV and cheer outside a courtroom as if you've marked a day in history.
    Originally posted by Loz01


    Except that being married allows you to make decisions on hospital care and other such things. A will helps with none of that. Additionally tax implications on things such as inheritance require you to be married or in a CP. it probably effects all kinds of things that I don't have the slightest inclination to research. It's enough for me to know that the law as it stood wasn't equal...ie not fair. The law should be fair and just.
    • pphillips
    • By pphillips 6th Jul 18, 3:41 PM
    • 306 Posts
    • 243 Thanks
    pphillips
    I think the problem was that when the government introduced same sex marriage, they left an inequality in the law by not removing civil partnerships. This government's defence in this case was very weak, I'm surprised they even bothered turning up. Yet another botched job that has cost the taxpayer millions!
    Last edited by pphillips; 06-07-2018 at 3:43 PM.
    • onomatopoeia99
    • By onomatopoeia99 6th Jul 18, 6:17 PM
    • 4,799 Posts
    • 10,934 Thanks
    onomatopoeia99
    Except that being married allows you to make decisions on hospital care and other such things.
    Originally posted by Senseicads
    Doctors make decisions on medical care, not spouses.


    You can nominate anyone to be the person the doctors talk to, the so-called "next of kin" (a title with no legal status) and you do not have to be related to them or married to them. NHS trusts have just about arrived in the 1970s as far as their outlook on relationships goes and they do, finally, accept that people have enduring romantic relationships which do not involve marriage. You can even tell your doctor to put it on your medical records and / or carry a "next of kin" card which explicitly states this.
    INTP, nerd, libertarian and scifi geek.
    Home is where my books are.
    • Senseicads
    • By Senseicads 6th Jul 18, 6:35 PM
    • 135 Posts
    • 93 Thanks
    Senseicads
    Doctors make decisions on medical care, not spouses.


    You can nominate anyone to be the person the doctors talk to, the so-called "next of kin" (a title with no legal status) and you do not have to be related to them or married to them. NHS trusts have just about arrived in the 1970s as far as their outlook on relationships goes and they do, finally, accept that people have enduring romantic relationships which do not involve marriage. You can even tell your doctor to put it on your medical records and / or carry a "next of kin" card which explicitly states this.
    Originally posted by onomatopoeia99
    Fair enough. Pretty sure the tax reasons still hold up though. Like I said there’s prob more but too much effort to research it. This is the fault of our government for leaving such an inequality within the law.
    • burnoutbabe
    • By burnoutbabe 8th Jul 18, 5:18 PM
    • 1,302 Posts
    • 1,861 Thanks
    burnoutbabe
    This whole thing seems daft and will probably be resolved by just doing away with new CP's and just let existing ones carry on.


    CP is NOT like they have on the continent where couples who live together register it formally for some benefits. CP in the UK is marriage (but without adultery rules).


    and them saying "oh, its better for all those people who don't want to get married and will protect the children" - well really, its going to be half a dozen middle class professional couples who do this. The people who need financial protection (stay at home women with kids etc) are going to find their partners are just as reluctant to civil partner then as marry them.
    • onomatopoeia99
    • By onomatopoeia99 8th Jul 18, 6:21 PM
    • 4,799 Posts
    • 10,934 Thanks
    onomatopoeia99
    CP is NOT like they have on the continent where couples who live together register it formally for some benefits. CP in the UK is marriage (but without adultery rules).
    Originally posted by burnoutbabe
    In the Netherlands, they are close to identical, the difference is that a partnership can be ended without needing to involved the court if there are no minor children, and partnerships do not require a declaration of vows during the ceremony wheras marriages do. So functionaly they are identical and approximately 20% of couples opt for partnerships rather than marriage.
    INTP, nerd, libertarian and scifi geek.
    Home is where my books are.
    • Tabbytabitha
    • By Tabbytabitha 8th Jul 18, 9:54 PM
    • 4,383 Posts
    • 6,972 Thanks
    Tabbytabitha
    In the Netherlands, they are close to identical, the difference is that a partnership can be ended without needing to involved the court if there are no minor children, and partnerships do not require a declaration of vows during the ceremony wheras marriages do. So functionaly they are identical and approximately 20% of couples opt for partnerships rather than marriage.
    Originally posted by onomatopoeia99
    In France, one of the ways you can dissolve a PACS is simply to marry someone else! Most young French couples seem to be using them as a half way house to marriage, rather like an old fashioned formal engagement and older people because otherwise your partner has to pay 60% tax on anything they inherit from the you.

    Most countries who have them tend to have them for a reason, the UK doesn't have that need.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

45Posts Today

2,685Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @laurawithers84: @MartinSLewis Our school is going to use your book for our new finance fortnight for year 8 students. We thought we wou?

  • RT @katiejane13uk: ????????IMPORTANT - CALLING ALL LEASEHOLDERS TO COMPLETE???????? @mhclg Leasehold Reform Consultation closes this month. This is the?

  • Just sent a text about postgrad loans. My Swype text auto-corrected it to pothead loans. Does it know something I don't?

  • Follow Martin