[Closed] Civil partnerships for all? Way too much time on your hands!

I believe that there's some quite significant legal differences. I might be interested in a civil partnership whereas I'm not particularly interested in marriage.

If they remove the need for shagging from civil partnerships then that's a good idea. A method of two people forming a partnership to protect themselves from inheritance tax without exchanging body fluids is entirely reasonable.

Funnily enough the only gay couple I knew always felt they were second class citizens because they weren't allowed to be married only civil partners - they had kids as well - they traded up to marriage as soon as they were allowed

Never understood why they didnt call it marriage in the first place - they should abolish civil partnerships now they can all get married

Civil partnerships for all? Way too much time on your hands

I'm lost for words

And yet you still want to start a discussion about it 😳

I think it would be a lot simpler if there were no legal difference between civil partnerships and marriage. Seems a bit bizarre that there are to be honest.

Miss Steinfeld said while they appreciate that marriage is a "very meaningful social institution for very many couples", it has a "problematic history from the point of view of female-male relations".

"Some might refer to it as a patriarchal social institution," she said.

"Some of that history lingers on for example that marriage certificates still only have space for the fathers of the parties and not the mothers.

"We don't feel comfortable with that and we feel we should have a choice."

Is it me or does his face quite clearly say "Christ not this shit again?"

[img] [/img]

the only thing more pointless than granting the right to 'civil partnersips' to heterosexual couples was granting homosexual ones the right to 'marriage'.

Change can come as a shock to closed-minded people, you'll get used to the idea and maybe even understand the need for it in future.

Until then try to channel your anger into something more productive.

Never understood why they didnt call it marriage in the first place

Because by doing so they would require the clergy to perform the ceremony and, whether you agree with them or not (I don't for the record), quite a few still believe that it's against God's will. It's not right to force one set of personal beliefs on someone else when it's not even your own institution that you're doing that to. They got around it simply by saying that no member of the clergy would have to perform the ceremony if they objected, which seemed like a reasonable compromise. That is what they should have done originally.

I believe that there's some quite significant legal differences

They're semantic. The legal rights conferred are exactly the same. The only thing that differs are the words used to describe them so technically there are 'legal differences' but the spirit of what they intend/result in is identical.

If they remove the need for shagging from civil partnerships then that's a good idea.

Does the law really still require a 'marriage' to be consecrated in order to be recognised? Seriously? I mean I don't know, I guess it's possible but I would have thought that was a Catholic church thing not a UK law thing.

And yet you still want to start a discussion about it

It's called irony and metaphor. Look it up (along with the word patronise, which you will find means when someone talks down to you).

Change can come as a shock to closed-minded people

You misunderstood me. I was in favour of 'gay marriage' in the first place and felt they should have done what they ended up doing in the first instance.

I'm not in favour of sexual politics, or politicking of any kind for that matter, for the sake of sexual politics. It's pointless and wastes time that could otherwise be better used.

Does the law really still require a 'marriage' to be consecrated in order to be recognised? Seriously? I mean I don't know, I guess it's possible but I would have thought that was a Catholic church thing not a UK law thing.

It's not unheard of for sibblings to live as a couple in a shared house. One of them dies and the survivor gets done over by the state for tax. A civil partnership would be an easy fix.

It's not unheard of for sibblings to live as a couple in a shared house. One of them dies and the survivor gets done over by the state for tax. A civil partnership would be an easy fix.

Don't be silly.

Not as it stands, but why not? You should be able to form a life partnership with anyone you like.

Edit: your edit now makes my response seem odd. But your new one doesn't seem to warrant a response. Other than... 😆

I'm with the 'attention whores' unless.. who's financing the lawsuit? Are they lawyers?

What's wrong with a register office union, it's hardly religious, or a good bash and the registrar attends, I went to a great one last summer like that.

Not as it stands, but why not? You should be able to form a life partnership with anyone you like.

You already have a life partnership with your sibling. They're your sibling.

Edit: your edit now makes my response seem odd. But your new one doesn't seem to warrant a response. Other than...

Yeah sorry for that. I read your post and for one second actually thought I better google it and then slapped myself around the face and thought 'don't be silly'.

Because by doing so they would require the clergy to perform the ceremony

No it wouldn't. I got married in a hotel in Scotland. No clergy present. No prayers. No hymns. Just a ceilidh and a good booze up. 😀

Let me guess, this pair of wretched attention whotes haven't got children have they.

What an ignorant thing to say. What if they can't have children, are they now worthless in your eyes?

By the way I'm pretty sure they talked about bringing up their child when they were on the R4 news.

So, making sweeping generalisations and jumping to conclusions. Make a you look, well, all attention whorey.

Do you have children, we need to know so as we can all jump to conclusions. Maybe you're not getting enough sleep, kids pestering you or something.

BTW, just how is Dave these days anyway. You still see him much?

No it wouldn't. I got married in a hotel in Scotland. No clergy present.

You had the option to do that but you also had the right to get married in a church and have the clergy perform the ceremony. That you didn't was your choice.

This was always the big issue with gay marriage; you can't demand someone to act against their conscience and faith when it's actually their job to uphold that conscience and faith even if you're own position is that you don't believe in any of it yourself.

Exempting those that felt they couldn't peform such a ceremony was so simply I am surpsied it wasn't done initially.

Do you have children, we need to know so as we can all jump to conclusions. Maybe you're not getting enough sleep, kids pestering you or something.

Yeah you hit the nail on the head there. Sorry, you're right. I shouldn't have made that point. Was uncalled for. For the record, yes, it's been a tough few weeks with the kids. As for Dave, no idea, I never saw him again. What might have been had I not chosen which side of the bed to lie in.

You already have a life partnership with your sibling. They're your sibling.

*and associated stuff

Yes is the answer to your first question OP.

Not as far as the tax man* is concerned. That's the only feature that differentiates people in a life partnership. I can't see why people who don't shagging are excluded.

Well it's an interesting perspective (as I originally wrote but then deleted). You could just as easily argue though that no one should be allowed the rights and recognitions of marriage. Maybe you could make a case for abolishing it altogether?

I hope they win. I'm not massively keen on the concept of 'marriage' given the historical and religious baggage but a civil partnership appeals.

GrahamS is married 😯

2016 really sucks 🙁

Ah see what you mean geetee.

Yeah I was always of the opinion that teh Gays should be allowed to get "married" and call it "marriage" - just like I did - but if the church decided they didn't need the extra revenue then they should be excused from any legal obligation to do so.

Still not very fair but avoid a stupid two-tier system of marriage or partnership.

Maybe you could make a case for abolishing it altogether?

GrahamS is married 😯

2016 really sucks 🙁

I think there is a counselling service available. 😉

Strange thing ive noticed is most hetro couples in a partnership or marrige are not happy, bickering and jealousy from both, yet those who have made the decision to marry because theyre gay or lesbian always seem happier in their relationship with each other.

"Some of that history lingers on for example that marriage certificates still only have space for the fathers of the parties and not the mothers.

I get annoyed by shit like that as well, the form used when applying for a passport is my pet peeve. Supposedly having to get it signed by an "upstanding member of society like a policemen or a priest" Pandering to some middle class Midsomer fantasy that a chap needs to have gone to the rights school to be a good chap, but a housewife or a joiner and the rest of us we are not good enough to sign a ****ing form.

Clearly these days there are pretty strong anti discrimination laws, but the real practice of equality in the fabric of bureaucracy constantly fails.

Strange thing ive noticed is most hetro couples in a partnership or marrige are not happy, bickering and jealousy from both, yet those who have made the decision to marry because theyre gay or lesbian always seem happier in their relationship with each other.

My cousin is gay and she is divorced.

But yeah, I know what you mean. I suspect there is a bit of selection bias at the moment, as presumably a reasonable proportion of gays who are married now are people who felt strongly about it because they were in committed relationships and found the previous restrictions prohibiting.

Whereas for straight people marriage is often something that people just sort of fall into after being together for a certain time.

Clearly these days there are pretty strong anti discrimination laws, but the real practice of equality in the fabric of bureaucracy constantly fails.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Whereas for straight people marriage is often something that people just sort of fall into after being together for a certain time.

There is a lot of research that shows that the happiest people of all are those that are childless and didn't want children. The unhappiest are those that are childless but did want children. The third and fourth lot sit somewhere in between.

If same sex couples in marriage end up being happier as a group compared to their heterosexual peers, I suspect it will be because this reason.

Children put a hell of a strain on a marriage or indeed any relationship. Honestly there but for the grace of god goes my marriage and my not being convicted of child brutality. The line between those that do and those that don't (beat their children) is pretty bloody thin.

One of them dies and the survivor [s]gets done over by the state for tax[/s] pays tax just like everyone else

FIFY

Scottish marriage certificates have mother and father details if that matters to them...

As for the differences I believe the main one is that a civil partnership doesn't require a ceremony. Also adultery isn't a ground for dissolution.

Presumably there are perceived differences otherwise some same sex couples would not continue to use that route...

hope they win. I'm not massively keen on the concept of 'marriage' given the historical and religious baggage but a civil partnership appeals.

Me too. Dont see why my distrust of religion should potentially have a negative effect on my familly. Mind you its a loads of pseudo religious bullshit as far as I can see, goes far beyond marriage though.

If you want to own property with your sibling or any one else without paying inheritance tax it is perfectly possible to do so without a civil partnership a joint tenancy or trust would achieve the same result.

From Memory a unconsomethinged marriage is voidable not void . So it is a ground for dissolution if one party wants but valid otherwise.

I've been in a monogamous heterosexual relationship for more than thirty years. I'd like the option of a civil partnership, we'd not get married though.

I'm missing something.

Are Registry Office weddings in England not available? Just confused at some of the folk above ruling out marriage as they aren't religious.

Not sure I really understand the difference.

What is it that makes civil partnership appealing, but not marriage?
Once you take the religious aspect out of it (as we did) isn't it very much the same thing?

I'm (sort of)in favour too. Just like sweepy, 30 yr+, stable relationship. Wills and inheritance are a pain without marriage, but if we haven't seen the inclination to marry before now, we're unlikely to ever. Pragmatically CP would be more of a simplifier for the legal side of things rather than meaningful as a ceremony.

Idealogically, though, my view that the state should just get out of the marriage business altogether, it shouldn't be any business of the state to recognise, reward or penalise any particular domestic or sexual relationship. If churches want to carry on doing them, well and good, same for any other folk who would like to draw up their own version.

Once you take the religious aspect out of it (as we did) isn't it very much the same thing?

You cannot take religon out of something that is based on religious views

[quote=anagallis_arvensis ]

Once you take the religious aspect out of it (as we did) isn't it very much the same thing?

You cannot take religon out of something that is based on religious views

Hmmm then maybe the difference is that I don't think of it as inherently religious?

After all, forms of marriage existed long before any religions got their hands on them.
And plenty of other animals choose life partners too.

I want a civil partnership, I don't want a ceremony or vows. All the reasons put forward by bigots for gays not deserving 'marriage' and having to have a civil partnership instead, that's why I don't want to get married.

I want a civil partnership, I don't want a ceremony or vows

But the ceremony and vows part is entirely optional?
And likewise many people have a ceremony and vows for a civil partnership.

I don't get it.

I hope they win. I'm not massively keen on the concept of 'marriage' given the historical and religious baggage but a civil partnership appeals.

Neither myself or my partner want to get married. We don't see the point in it and don't want all the stress and expense of it all. We couldn't do with family telling us what to do, how to do it and who to invite. Doing it in secret or abroad woukd just cause family divisions, again we don't see any reason to it.

However legally should something happen to one of us it could be a nightmare sorting thing out because we are not married.

We would like to be legally viewed as a couple without having to go down the marriage route.

I do also see marriage as a relgious thing as well. That is from my upbringing where to be married is to be married infront if God etc.
I know that is not the only way now(registry wedding for example) but that notion still stays in my mind.

Don't know if any of that makes sense.

Basically, yes I think its a good idea.

You do know that marriage pre-dates the church and that you and your partner don't have to have a big family get-together?

I don't get it.

I suspect it comes down to prejudice - those strongly prejudicial towards religion and establishment don't want to engage with something they see as being part of that mechanism.

The only 'actual' difference between CP and marriage is the use of the work marriage and civil partnership.

But the cultural diffrence could be much bigger, especially if you're pre-disposed against those mechanisms of oppression (state and religion).