Talk

Advanced search

No same sex civil partnerships

(192 Posts)
Applebite Tue 21-Feb-17 11:52:00

AIBU to wonder who would take this to Court? Surely the point of civil partnerships was to recognise FINALLY that gay people have the same rights and needs as hetero people?

Or am I missing something that you get in a civil partnership but not a marriage? I mean, I can see why you might not want to get married, and why you would think there should be more rights for "common law spouses", but would a civil partnership give you anything (or less of something) that marriage wouldn't?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/heterosexual-couple-learn-outcome-civil-partnership-battle-court/

TeaCake5 Tue 21-Feb-17 11:53:07

Tbh just seems to be an attention seeking exercise judging by the amount of media interviews the women is doing now.

Applebite Tue 21-Feb-17 11:54:48

Well that was my thought. Key words: "West Londoners" and first world problems (she says, as a west Londoner...)!

That was why I wondered if I was missing something about civil partnerships that I didn't know about? But maybe not!

peggyundercrackers Tue 21-Feb-17 11:57:21

I agree with them, the rules should be the same for everyone and should not favour same sex couples. I suspect if the govt. allowed civil partnerships for hetrosexual couples that marriage would be even more unpopular than it is today and that the church would frown on that position.

DJBaggySmalls Tue 21-Feb-17 11:59:57

People should have the right to a church wedding or a secular partnership. Whats the problem?

TiltedNewt Tue 21-Feb-17 12:02:05

to recognise FINALLY that gay people have the same rights and needs as hetero people?

Same rights. Same. If straight people can't have civil partnerships how is this equal?

I would love a civil partnership instead of marriage but I don't have the right to apparently. However, I do recognise in the grand scheme of things I don't have much to complain about.

Hotfuzzed Tue 21-Feb-17 12:04:08

Civil partnerships were all bs anyway. Shouldn't have been introduced was just a way for the gov to cop out of allowing samesex marriage sooner.

OneWithTheForce Tue 21-Feb-17 12:07:41

*Today 12:04 Hotfuzzed

Civil partnerships were all bs anyway. Shouldn't have been introduced was just a way for the gov to cop out of allowing samesex marriage sooner.

This^

Same sex or heterosexual- all should have the access to the same thing. What justifiable reason can there be for that not to be the case?

Blossomdeary Tue 21-Feb-17 12:12:00

We are passed the civil partnership now - not needed. Time that it was ditched, though those that have one would obviously keep it.

This court case is a huge waste of public money.

QueenMortifauxcado Tue 21-Feb-17 12:13:55

I used to prefer the idea of civil partnerships but changed my mind when I realised civil partnerships were invented because same sex couples were not allowed to marry, this is a massive insult to the gay community. It is basically saying same sex couples are not equal to opposite sex couples and should not be allowed the same rights. Another sticking point was thinking marriage stems from religion, it doesn't.

RunningHurts Tue 21-Feb-17 12:21:02

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between civil partnership and marriage?

TheWayYouLookTonight Tue 21-Feb-17 12:22:08

Same sex or heterosexual- all should have the access to the same thing. What justifiable reason can there be for that not to be the case?

This. Whether or not civil partnerships should ever have been brought in in the first place, as a cop out to try and avoid legalising gay marriage, the situation now is that straight couples are only entitled to marriage while gay couples can have marriage or civil partnership. That is not equality.

TreeTop7 Tue 21-Feb-17 12:28:51

Civil partnerships suit people who have objections to marriage as an institution, but who want something legally binding for pensions/inheritance tax/next of kin decisions etc.

The legal definition of adultery should be different as well, in the interests of fairness. Currently, adultery only applies to heterosexual sex.

MackerelOfFact Tue 21-Feb-17 12:32:19

Civil partnerships were all bs anyway. Shouldn't have been introduced was just a way for the gov to cop out of allowing samesex marriage sooner.

Yes, absolutely. They should never have existed in the first place. The government have now dug themselves a hole because they can't revoke them, as that would leave hundreds or thousands of couples suddenly no longer legally partnered. It's a fucking mess, frankly.

What the couple are campaigning for is the right to access a lesser partnership status which was essentially designed to justify oppression of gay couples. It's just a bit of an insult, isn't it?

Applebite Tue 21-Feb-17 12:35:40

Civil partnerships were all bs anyway. Shouldn't have been introduced was just a way for the gov to cop out of allowing samesex marriage sooner.

*Yes, absolutely. They should never have existed in the first place. The government have now dug themselves a hole because they can't revoke them, as that would leave hundreds or thousands of couples suddenly no longer legally partnered. It's a fucking mess, frankly.

What the couple are campaigning for is the right to access a lesser partnership status which was essentially designed to justify oppression of gay couples. It's just a bit of an insult, isn't it?*

This is exactly how I see it, but didn't manage to express it!

DoNotBlameMeIVotedRemain Tue 21-Feb-17 12:35:56

The rights of marriage and civil partnership are the same. That's the important thing not the terminology.

Mynestisfullofempty Tue 21-Feb-17 12:36:31

OP I don't understand your title. Isn't it (the article to which you've posted a link) about opposite sex civil partnerships?

MalletsMallets Tue 21-Feb-17 12:37:11

I don't want to be married, i don't want to be a wife and i don't want a wedding. But i am aware that this legally leaves me in a rather precarious position should my partner die and visa versa.
A civil partnership would resolve this.

I don't think they should have introduced them, but they are here now and well if a gay couple have that choice i am not sure why a heterosexual couple don't

kel1234 Tue 21-Feb-17 12:39:31

I think you should be allowed to get married regardless if you are in a
heterosexual or same sex relationship. Similarly I think if you would prefer a civil partnership over a marriage, then you should be allowed that, regardless of if you are in a same sex or opposite sex relationship.
Basically I think both marriage and a civil partnership should be available to both opposite and same sex couples.
Though personally I don't understand why a couple would choose a civil partnership over a marriage. (I mean no offence to anyone at all, just not something I get)

maddiemookins16mum Tue 21-Feb-17 12:45:20

I think the same as kel1234, I could have written the same post word for word.

Pettywoman Tue 21-Feb-17 12:45:50

If there is such a thing as a civil partnership then it should be open to everyone, gay or straight just as marriage now is. I think I'd have chosen that over marriage if it had been available at the time.

After all the campaigning to get same sex marriage allowed for reasons of equality it seems ridiculous straight people aren't being allowed into civil partnerships. Bonkers.

Spacecadet14 Tue 21-Feb-17 12:52:58

I agree with Mallets. They should never have introduced CP in the first place, but now they have, why shouldn't opposite sex couples benefit from the legal safeguards too? The Govt should either allow that or scrap them completely and make 'common law' status more legally binding.

AnnPerkins Tue 21-Feb-17 13:02:44

Yep. The Government caused this by not having the courage to legalise same-sex marriage in the first place, and it's right that they are called on it in the courts.

They should now take this opportunity to give everyone the right to a legal partnership that is not marriage. Just because we've always done something one way doesn't mean we can't change it.

I can understand why some people would choose civil partnership over marriage. I might have done it myself if I'd had the opportunity 25 years ago.

Applebite Tue 21-Feb-17 13:10:26

Well spotted mynest, sorry for any confusion!

ChiefClerkDrumknott Tue 21-Feb-17 13:11:07

I don't want to be married, i don't want to be a wife and i don't want a wedding. But i am aware that this legally leaves me in a rather precarious position should my partner die and visa versa.
A civil partnership would resolve this.

Agree 100%. DP and I would have one if allowed. I hate the institution of marriage but am aware of the legal status it gives me and him. I would far prefer to get a private civil partnership without having to tell a soul.

I don't think they should have introduced them, but they are here now and well if a gay couple have that choice i am not sure why a heterosexual couple don't

It really would have been less costly to just allow this. The case was lost on a technicality, that the government should be allowed more time to consider it, so hopefully it will happen

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now