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

I don't get it.

I don't think you are [i]going[/i] to get it Graham, and thats OK we all have our own ideas.
For me the whole concept of marriage is somehow tainted- The religious aspect, the pompous attitude of the registry office, the historical 'goods and chattels' outlook where you pretty much owned your wife, the 'it's too good for the gays attitude that still exists in some places. It all adds up to an institution that I want no part of.
But I would like the option of legal recognition of three decades of commitment.
Your marriage was, and is obviously very important to you and that is really great but its not what we want.

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

I don't think you are going to get it Graham, and thats OK we all have our own ideas.

Yeah I'm absolutely not (for once) trying to be argumentative.
You are fully entitled to your ideas, I'm only poking at them to try to understand them.

It sounds like it comes down to the "baggage" thing.

I don't see any of that as an aspect of "marriage", I see it as an aspect of "religious marriage".

To me it's like: some pubs don't let in women or gays. I don't respond to that by not going to the pub, I respond to it by not going to [i]those[/i] pubs.

something that is based on religious views

which based on a biological instinct for monogamy

which based on a biological instinct for monogamy

You do know that marriage pre-dates the church

You do know that sky faries pre date the church and christianity?

which based on a biological instinct for monogamy

Could you explain this in detail?

I don't think you are going to get it Graham, and thats OK we all have our own ideas.
For me the whole concept of marriage is somehow tainted- The religious aspect, the pompous attitude of the registry office, the historical 'goods and chattels' outlook where you pretty much owned your wife, the 'it's too good for the gays attitude that still exists in some places. It all adds up to an institution that I want no part of.
But I would like the option of legal recognition of three decades of commitment.
Your marriage was, and is obviously very important to you and that is really great but its not what we want.

Well put, it's how I feel. I've always felt like this and it's difficult to put into words.

I think we established pretty clearly that the problem people have with 'marriage' versus a CP is cultural.

If you argue that you think marriage is wrong as an institution (rather than just not wanting to do it out of preference) based on outdated cultural associations, (because it's just not like that anymore; marriage is not a means of either cultural or gender subjgation), then that's a biggoted view and makes you no different to someone who argues that homosexuality is wrong for the same reason.

The ONLY differences between marriage and CP are the issue of annulment based on infidelity, and that you don't need to have a ceremony to enter into a CP whereas you still do with marriage; even if it is a civil wedding, there is a ceremony with words spoken. These can be any words you like, but they are still 'vows' made to each other. Interestingly, if you opt for a civil wedding, you are specifically precluded from using anything with a religious connotation. I found this out when the registra required me to share with him what I was planning to read at a friends wedding so that he could make sure there were no references to God or similar.

While I understand the aversion to the cultural association with marriage I don't think it's rational. There's just no evidence to supoprt that view from an objective perspective. Such a strongly held belief/aversion is thus not unlike religion in that sense. Culture and religion are two sides of the same coin; it's a 'belief system' built on he codification of norms, principles and values and by which we makes sense of the world. To some extent it's choice but in many respects its not. We are 'bathed' in culture and you can't be bathed in it without feeling its effects, even if, like many people here have chosen to do with religion (Myself included), you end up rejecting it.

Culture is a classic example of systems theory as applied to society in that regard.

But what it important to accept is that whatever issue you have with marriage versus CP, the actual difference, outside of culture, is zero. They result is indentical outcomes legally speaking.

Well other than the other differences!

Well other than Venereal disease being grounds for annulment or a marriage but not a civil partnership and adultery ground for divorce but not ending a civil partnership I'm struggling to see what practical differences there actually are?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

OP: makes troll thread but calls other people 'wretched attention whores'. Is that irony or just hypocrisy?

OP: makes troll thread but calls other people 'wretched attention whores'. Is that irony or just hypocrisy?

Possible both but if you don't care to join in the debate then that's your perogative.

If you argue that you think marriage is wrong as an institution (rather than just not wanting to do it out of preference) based on outdated cultural associations, (because it's just not like that anymore; marriage is not a means of either cultural or gender subjgation), then that's a biggoted view and makes you no different to someone who argues that homosexuality is wrong for the same reason.

I don't want to get married for those reasons, however, I have no issues with other people doing whatever they like.

Surely that stands my objection apart from those who stand on the premise they wish to deny an option to someone else?

Surely that stands my objection apart from those who stand on the premise they wish to deny an option to someone else?

Yes it does, I agree.

But the argument you've made is based on the the same premise as the following statement:

"I've got no problem with homosexuality; if other people want to engage in that practise that's their choice, but I think it's wrong."

If you think that it's OK for this person to hold that view; if you don't judge them badly because of it, then there's no problem.

But if you think that they are wrong in their view, or if you judge them harshly and seek to marginalise them because of it, then that's where the problems arise.

No, it's my prerogative. 😉

I can't really be arsed to get into it but if I was to show a similar level of respect to the opinions of others as you did in your OP I'd probably say that your last post was utter drivel.

Edit: post before last now

Claiming that people who don't like the institution of marriage are the same as those who say homosexuality is wrong was particularly stupid.

Claiming that people who don't like the institution of marriage are the same as those who say homosexuality is wrong was particularly stupid.

No that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that if you're objection is based simply on cultural associations, rather than objective evidence, then you're holding a view with is ostensibly based on prejudice, not objectivity. And yes I'm using a very contentious analolgy to demonstrate the point, but the point still stands. It's a good example of the unconscious bias we all suffer from in some way and also highlights the problem with using 'equality' as an argument for making decisions or judgements.

By objective evidence (for marriage being a 'bad' thing in some way), I mean for example 'I don't like marriage because it requires that the wife is subserviant to the husband', which used to, objectively, be the case and as such would be a justifiable reason to stand against it, either pesronally or in protest.

But has long since stopped being a real issue and it's just not bjectively correct to say that marriage is an oppressive institution used to subjugate or control people through hegemony.

It's fine to chose not to want to do and fine to conclude that it's 'not for you'. The equivalent argument (using the theme I already introduced), from a pure reason and logic perspective is 'I'm not gay so therefore don't want to enter into gay sexual activity'. But that's a whole league different to a statement that then adds '...because it's wrong', to the end.

I don't want to get married for those reasons, however, I have no issues with other people doing whatever they like

^^Completely agree with this, and perhaps more saliently, so does my partner!

because it's just not like that anymore; marriage is not a means of either cultural or gender subjgation

It may well not be in many modern contexts, and I'm sure many contemporary marriages are free from patriarchal subjugation, however you can't simply wipe the historical plate clean and pretend that hundreds of years of institutional context can simply disappear over night.

For sure we live in much more gender unbiased and enlightened times, but it was only in the late 1980s and early 1990s that many European countries changed their laws regarding marital rape.

Many of us will still have older married relatives who 'tied the knot' under very different circumstances, and marriage in many countries remains a very different institution, (especially for the females concerned), than what we have come to understand as a modern non-religious marriage in the UK

you can't simply wipe the historical plate clean and pretend that hundreds of years of institutional context can simply disappear over night.

however you can't simply wipe the historical plate clean and pretend that hundreds of years of institutional context can simply disappear over night.

This is very true. I agree 100% and it is the definition of the cultural issues that people have with marriage that I was referring to.

Cultural norms and values still linger, even if they are outdated and, objectively, wrong. It is why some people still harbour prejudice against homosexuality for example.

I'm not even saying someone is objectively wrong for hanging on to their view that marriage is a means of supression because it always was. Just that you can't hold that view and then in the next sentence castigate someone for holding on to their homophobia, their racism, their chauvanism etc without then becoming a hypocrite.

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.

That's not true: clergy can and do refuse to marry heterosexual couples, for example the Catholic church refusing to re-marry divorcees (until recently, anyway).

The ONLY differences between marriage and CP are the issue of annulment based on infidelity

I have to say, as a liberal hand-wringing do-gooder, I'm struggling with this one. A marriage need be no more than a registrar in an office with two witnesses. Whilst there is undoubtedly historical and cultural baggage, surely the best response is to not live according to those outmoded values.

eh? Relevance?

Reference to the couple mentioned in the OP.
Some people may well not wish to participate in the social and cultural institution of marriage because of the historical legacy of that institution. Therefore they would prefer Civil Partnership as an alternative.

Not necessarily saying I agree with them - just that I can see their argument.

you can't simply wipe the historical plate clean and pretend that hundreds of years of institutional context can simply disappear over night.

Possibly not - but it can disappear from [i]my[/i] marriage.

I guess there are two ways to deal with it really: be part of change and evolution in that institution or go for a different institution.

From my understanding of what has been said here it sounds like some people would prefer to take the second option, which is fair enough (if not a little ironic, given that CPs exist because people wanted to get married).

You do know that marriage pre-dates the church
You do know that sky faries pre date the church and christianity?

What Grum said and finally we should have equality in law irrespective of sexualityIE none of us should be banned form something because of who we ****. That means gay people and straight people need to be able to pick all options form civil partnership to marriage

Just that you can't hold that view and then in the next sentence castigate someone for holding on to their homophobia, their racism, their chauvanism etc without then becoming a hypocrite.

I see what you're saying, but from my perspective it's more nuanced.

sexism, racism and homophobia are beliefs/discriminatory opinions, whereas marriage is an 'institution' with many negative connotations inherited over the years.
Whilst these still exist - [in any guise e.g. arranged marriage, forced marriage / the wedding the parents always wanted for their princess etc] then the 'institute' of marriage will have a tarnished image for some.

This does not in anyway mean that all marriages are tarnished, or that people who will not marry themselves take a dim view of friends and family that do get married - on the contrary, despite my own parent's appalling marriage I'm more than happy to celebrate the union of my friends however they [u]choose [/u]to do it!

I do agree that marriage is changing and thankfully changing for the better, but I'm not sure that recognising that the institute of 'marriage' in and of itself still has some issues, is the same as being discriminatory to certain people.

Actually its a very good idea and something they have been doing in France for years. I think its discriminatory to allow civil partnerships only for same sex couples. Also civil partnerships could be a route for legally binding pre-nups which is something long overdue in the UK.

@Digby, I'm curious as to why you think marriage is chaning for the better, divorce is at an all time record high or is the fact that its easier to get out of a bad marriage your point ?

That means gay people and straight people need to be able to pick all options form civil partnership to marriage

If we agree that CP and marriage are - legally - essentially the same, then the choice is reduced to semantics, surely?

I do prefer the system in many European counties, where the marriage is a purely civil arrangement, with the option to have a ceremony in a church if you wish.

@Digby, I'm curious as to why you think marriage is chaning for the better, divorce is at an all time record high or is the fact that its easier to get out of a bad marriage your point ?

Marital rape was outlawed in 1991...

If we agree that CP and marriage are - legally - essentially the same, then the choice is reduced to semantics, surely?

Yes if we agree they are the same thing then yes they are the same thing, problem is we dont all agree they are the same and they do have some differences

Legally, there are some minor differences but they are not being advanced as an argument for CP to be available to hetero couples.

I do prefer the system in many European counties, where the marriage is a purely civil arrangement, with the option to have a ceremony in a church if you wish.

Don't we have that here?

Marital rape was outlawed in 1991...

Marriage and civil partnership is very different in terms of divorce / seperation afaik.

@Digby, I'm curious as to why you think marriage is chaning for the better, divorce is at an all time record high or is the fact that its easier to get out of a bad marriage your point ?

That's two different issues even though the latter point is, ironically, a corollary of the first. Marriage no longer acts to subjugate either party, (the argument that marriage has changed for the better) which is a good thing, and the proof of that is that people are more willing/able to get out of a marriage that no longer works for them (the divorce rate doesn’t prove that marriage is a bad thing).
What would be interesting to see is whether the original data that showed empirically how marriage was good for me and bad for women has changed. It used to be (the studies I read were from the 70s) that mental health, when measured, was highest for men and lowest for women when they were married but the exact opposite when not.

fair question jambalaya ...

I think my view that marriage is changing for the better is because of the attitudes of the people entering into it. i.e. they are entering into it as a more equal 'partnership' ... there is less context of chatel/ownership/obey/subservience/patriarchal/primary carer/producer of male heirs/

As GrahamS stated in response to my comment about the historical context of marriage:

Possibly not - but it can disappear from my marriage.

Your comments though do take the debate onto another level:

Much of the discussion here has been about the ability and appropriateness of peoples legal right to either marry or have a CP

Whether marriage is changing or the CP option is better for the long term 'divorce' statistics or more importantly the long term happiness of the people (especially any children) involved I really don't know ...

Don't we have that here?

No - I'm saying that churches are not allowed to marry people. The ceremony is effectively a blessing.

Yes but that is nothing to do with marriage imo, that was fixing the rape law.

You don't think that a husband was allowed to rape his wife has anything to do with marriage?

Marriage and civil partnership is very different in terms of divorce / seperation afaik.

No - I'm saying that churches are not allowed to marry people. The ceremony is effectively a blessing.

That's ostensibly how it works here. The ceremony has nothing to do with conferring the legal status. You're not married in a church until you sign the registry.

Marital rape was outlawed in 1991...

Yes but that is nothing to do with marriage imo, that was fixing the rape law.

Hale's statement [in his 1736 legal treatise Historia Placitorum Coronæ or History of the Pleas of the Crown, where he wrote that such a rape could not be recognized since the wife "hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract."]in History of the Pleas of the Crown was not supported by any judicial authority but was believed to be a logical consequence of the laws of marriage and rape as understood at the time. Marriage gave conjugal rights to a spouse, and marriage could not be revoked except by private Act of Parliament—it therefore seemed to follow that a spouse could not legally revoke consent to sexual intercourse, and if there was consent there was no rape.

Still don't get it. What on earth has previous forms of marriage got to do with how things are today, and why would anyone let such an irrelevance affect their decision making?
It's like not drinking coke because it used to have cocaine in it.

Yes but that is nothing to do with marriage imo, that was fixing the rape law.

Ok, so a hypothetical scenario (I don't have time to try and find any case law)

Let's say a marriage in the 1980s was going through some difficulties. The couple were in 'separate beds' and 'not speaking'. Things reach a head when the husband come home drunk and forces his wife to have sex. i.e. without her 'consent'. The law at that time however deemed that by being married the wife had by default given consent. In other words she did not have the legal right to choice what to do with her own body and that by being married, she was in effect a 'possession' of her husband's

My point being that the historical legacy of marriage until recently had negative connotations in law that a wife did not have 'body autonomy'

That's ostensibly how it works here. The ceremony has nothing to do with conferring the legal status. You're not married in a church until you sign the registry.

Nevertheless, clergy are allowed to perform marriage ceremonies. In a discussion about cultural/ historical baggage I would argue that it's an important difference with some other European countries.

So some people are allowed to perform marriages. Maybe people should just 'get over it'?

Still don't get it. What on earth has previous forms of marriage got to do with how things are today, and why would anyone let such an irrelevance affect their decision making?
It's like not drinking coke because it used to have cocaine in it.

I've been to quite a few weddings in the last three years, church and non-church, and there's such a range of services I understand why you might think there should be an option somewhere. Was a bit surprised by the Devon vicar who did a sermon mostly about the fact that the couple could have children now they were married. The 'obey' vow seems to have gone but not the ownership aspect, entirely - 'you may now kiss your bride' is still popular but always seems properly anachronistic.

So some people are allowed to perform marriages. Maybe people should just 'get over it'?

It doesn't particularly bother me: I was married by a vicar who happens to be a family friend.

But I can see why people might object to it, given its history.

So is it the act of ceremony that is problematic? You can always just have the requisite witnesses and no one else. I don't know, but I am pretty sure a CP would still also require witnesses and given you have to travel somewhere to do it (i.e. sign into the agreement), that's still a ceremony. The only difference is that you wouldn't be exchanging vows.

I just know that if we got married now, my gran (87) and his parents (60 going on 80) would be thoroughly relieved - and that really pisses me off.

That's a very good point - I've frequently been asked by older and elderly relatives 'when are you going to make an honest woman of her?'

The subtext being that if a woman is 'living over the brush' then she is somehow a 'fallen woman' i.e. dishonorable and tainted as she is having sexual relations outside of marriage and therefore 'living in sin' - the only solution being to marry her and make her honorable.

Old fashion views perhaps, but they are still perpetuated today as a way of men trying to control, label and demean a woman's sexuality.

I am pretty sure a CP would still also require witnesses and given you have to travel somewhere to do it (i.e. sign into the agreement), that's still a ceremony.

Yep, you still need to sign the register, still need two witnesses, and still need to go to an "approved place" to do it.

https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/weddings-and-civil-partnership-ceremonies

So as you say the only apparent difference (in process) between a civil partnership and a civil marriage seems to be that for some bizarre reason [i]"You must exchange some formal wording if you’re getting married"[/i] but apparently not if you are entering civil partnership.

So some people are allowed to perform marriages. Maybe people should just 'get over it'?

You are clearly one of the great thinkers of our age

It has been said before.