Marriage - yay or nay?

JosieRosie, you are the one that needs to grow up on this issue, not me.

You don't get it, do you? It is a FACT that civil partnerships are no different to marriage. Why would you be treated any differently in a cp by the financial and legal institutions than in a marriage? I am grown up enough to realise that society treats people in relationships as being in relationships not according their marital status . You're not.

As old as seven, eh? Wow that is surprising. At the age of 7, I could understand that there is no point having two systems that meant the same thing legally.

Must be so nice to right.....

It probably does, to a certain extent, represent the people that you are trying to convince about this.

Why else did you post it here, JosieRosie? You must care about the opinions here to do so.
If they don't see this as an issue on mumsnet, the rest of the world isn't going to give a s*!! Trust me on this.

Never mind. Carry on with your campaign. Carry on with the illusion that you'll be treated differently by society as a 'civil partner' and not a 'wife'.
I think you must be really young-we've all been young so not a criticism- not to be able to see that when it comes to cp's and marriage it is very much a case of : same shit, different label or, if you see them in a positive light: as being equal and therefore not worth altering the system we have.

Oh yes, you don't want to wear a white dress or be given away. Newsflash- you don't have to.

Other than history of marriage and your dislike of the word 'wife', I see no other arguments from you.
I do, however, accept that none will be forthcoming and there is no point arguing further. About from a couple of people, nobody here agrees with you, though. Hope you realise that. To most people, it is a legal contract.

They still are a barking mad pipe dream. The word 'if' is not meant to convey that I agree with it.
Why are you not arguing your case here, JosieRosie? Others-not just old antagonistic me- disagree with you about this.

History and how you feel about marriage is not enough to change the law, is it? You just sound spoiled as if you expect the world to revolve around how you feel about things. Even when there is no justifiable logic to change things because of 'unfairness'. There is no unfairness- cp's are same as marriage.

It's not as if you are arguing for CP's that would be legally different to marriage- which would be reasonable.
I believe Peter Tatchell has a system in mind that is very different to marriage legally. That's reasonable.

If marriage is to be seen in a negative light, then I fail to see how civil partnerships can be seen in a positive light.

Marriage and civil partnerships are both state approved monogamy. Live with somebody and the government will give you a nice box to fit into.
That box for heterosexuals at present is marriage, if cp's come in for heterosexuals the 'box' will be civil partnerships-which will be subject to the same rules as marriage.
Peter Tatchell pointed out that the downside for gay people was that they would no longer be seen as individuals in their own right if civil partnerships came in, he was right- gay people are now seen as appendages of their partner when it comes to benefits system and some other areas.
I admire Tatchell a lot- he is a brave, decent man and he is nobody's fool so
I can't believe that he supports this cp campaign- I can only think that he is begrudgingly behind it- for he is (from what I have read) very anti-marriage/civil partnerships.
Has it never occurred to the pro- cp's for heterosexuals people that the government actively wants people to couple up so that they can save money?
Look at all the guilt and scorn that is poured upon single mothers!
If a person truly is anti-marriage, they don't have civil partnerships.

CP's are essentially 'same dress, different label'.

I don't think anybody should be fooled into thinking that they are some kind of brave, enlightened way forward.

To be honest, JosieRosie, if these cp's do come in for straight people and you have one, prepare to be disappointed when you find that society treats you exactly as if you had married. Because it will. It has to- there can be no unequal treatment of those in cp's those in marriages from a legal perspective.
As for the rest of society, heck, you're essentially married if you cohabit, anyway. Nobody distinguishes anymore. I've been called my dh's 'partner' a few times. If I can be asked, I correct people in a nice way ('actually, we're married') because I've got an irrational dislike of the word 'partner'!

I completely fail to see the point of CP for heterosexuals too, I have heard gay people refer to their civil partners as husband or wife or saying they are married, because essentially they are. Unless it was to differ in legal standing from marriage or same sex CP then it is the same, surely? Just a different name. I don't oppose it as such, just think that there are far more important things for our government to be spending time and money on right now.

The business about husbands owning wives, well that is history, modern marriage is an equal partnership, the way I see it it is up to us as feminists and modern people to ensure that it remains that way, not perpetuate historical myths by avoiding it. No one has to be given away, change their name, use use any title or term that they don't want to, we are very fortunate to have all this freedom in our country, it is not so everywhere in the world.

heterosexuals have an existing legal arrangement they can chose.its called marriage

cp addressed that same sex couples had no such arrangement

now if the contention is what wife means in today society and to the individual ,well thats your individual issue to address.it doesn't need an additional extra layer of state intervention or a socially constructed arrangement to replicate marriage in all but name.because some dont want to be married or called wife. cp replicates marriage for same sex.heterosexual can get married

But there is no point changing this at all. Even the feminists here have said that. Apart from one or two people, nobody else seems to see the worth of civil partnerships for heterosexuals.

I do not understand why people cannot at least consider the fact that it is not the words marriage or wife that traps or belittles women (if marriage is seen as a negative thing, that is) it is what marriage does.

Marriage is the legal formalisation of a cohabiting relationship.

Civil partnerships are also the legal formalisation of a cohabiting relationship.

In very short space of time, civil partners will realise that the legal and financial systems treat them exactly the same as married people and that society sees them as being married, anyway, because most people are not hung up on the history of marriage. As far as they're concerned, people in a formal legal relationship are married.

Cohabiting couples are treated the same as married couples in a lot of areas. Why on earth should civil partners be treated any differently?

Society loves to 'couple' people up.

JosieRosie, Apart from 'history' and 'words' you've not given any other good reasons why you think civil partnerships should be available to heterosexuals.

If we all had that attitude nothing would change, including things like women getting the vote

I do appreciate your problems with the word 'marriage' , JosieRosie, and all the historical stuff. I really do. It's not enough to overhaul a system that already works, though.

That is, get involved in a system that is marriage, don't get involved or work it out yourself.

You cannot reasonably expect the law to change because some people have problems with history and words.

It wouldn't be four systems, it would be two:
Marriage
CPs

JosieRosie, I've tried to find common ground with you here, I really have. If you want a PACS arrangement that would not legally be the same as marriage, I say fair enough to you. Campaign all you like. I'd be on your side.

Perhaps an agreement that gave you some rights without legally being same as marriage. OK, fair enough.

But really, as there is no legal difference between marriage and cp's as they stand in this country, every government with an iota of sense will turn around and say: 'just get married and call each other what you like for heaven's sake. Nobody gives a shit about what you call each other. You're still subject to the same rules in a cp as you are in a marriage. So who gives a ?'
Obviously, in much more polite terms.

I don't expect the government to waste its time just because of an irrational dislike of a word. Really, I don't.

I'm all for a PACS -type agreement, don't get me wrong, it seems fair enough. But to have civil partnerships for heterosexuals I don't get because legally they arethe same as marriage.

But a completely legally different set-up that is NOT legally akin to marriage? OK, fair enough to a PACS -type thing.

Do you really think that the government should introduce FOUR different systems for people to legally pair up, i.e.:

marriage for heterosexuals
marriage for homosexuals
c.p.'s for heterosexuals
c.p.'s for homosexuals

that would all have exactly the same legal standing because some people have problems with the term 'wife' or 'husband'? . You really think that people's personal issues with these terms is enough to warrant a complete overhaul of marriage.
Not to mention the confusion it would cause?

You really think that this is a good use of the government's time?

Because I think that those 'civil partnerships' that exist in other countries are not the equivalent of legal marriage that civil partnerships in the UK are.

The PACS arrangement in France is not the same as French marriage. The legal rights and responsibilities are different to marriage.

CP's in the UK are legally equal to marriage. Why would the UK introduce civil partnerships for heterosexual couples in the UK when civil marriage for heterosexuals also exists? It makes no sense.

Words do have connotations, I agree, but if civil partnerships which are exactly the same as marriage from a legal standpoint are introduced, do you honestly think that they won't be seen as the same as marriage?

People who live together in cp's OR marriage will be treated the same as the rest of society.

I don't think you've read this thread well because if you had people have already pointed out the difference between PACS and marriage.

Put it this way, I am married. I married in a civil ceremony free of religion and fuss. If the govt. announced tomorrow that people who married in the same way as myself would now be known as civil partners and it was retrospective so that I would now be a 'civil partner' and not a 'wife', it would make absolutely no difference to me at all.

I'd still have to go through the rigmorale of a divorce (only it would be called a 'dissolution') and subject to same rules of divorce too. I'd still be treated the same as a 'wife' by financial and legal systems.

It would make no difference to my actual relationship, either- my relationship with my husband is what we make of it-good or bad- not what we call each other.

Oh, and of course the name of something matters! Words have connotations ... I don't want to be associated with the word "wife"!!