Marriage - yay or nay?

We're not being unrealistic, wamster, as the institution of civil partnership for straight couples has been introduced in other countries. It's not pie in the sky. Other countries have accepted that it is reasonable and sensible for some people to want a CP, and are now giving them the option. So why on earth not the UK?

(actually, I'm in Scotland, and when we become independent in a couple of years I have high hopes that CPs will be introduced for straight couples not long thereafter. I've been in touch with the Justice Secretary up here. We like to get in there first and do things ahead of England - the smoking ban, right to breastfeed etc!)

Sorry, that should be: 'subjected to the same pressure to stay in an unhappy cohabiting relationship'.

I think the problem here is that you're making the assumption that it is the name of something which matters (cp's and marriage are same legally).

I don't think that this is the case. Marriage is not how it is because of the word 'marriage' or because of the word 'wife', it is how it is because of the function of what it does: i.e. legally binds a couple imposing a legal structure upon a cohabiting couple that it can be hard to escape from without going through the disapproval of society at at some level.
ANY couple-regardless of whether married or not- will face some disapproval if they split up when they have children. A cohabiting woman will still be told: 'think of the children' and subjected to the same pressure to stay in an unhappy marriage.

Therefore anything which imposes the identical legal ties of marriage upon a cohabiting couple will be seen as being the same as marriage eventually.

I don't blame people for not wanting to get married or not liking the term 'wife', I do, however, think that they are being really unrealistic and just a bit unreasonable to think that a whole new set of laws should be brought in to accommodate their dislike.
Sort it out yourselves legally like some people here have done.

Oh, and although I have in the past toyed with the idea of doing it in secret for the legal security, and just keeping the marriage certificate in the filing cabinet, to be opened in the event of death , I just couldn't do the dishonesty bit very well. It would be bound to come up - friends quite often say things like "not married yet? You'll give in eventually!" or whatever, and I wouldn't want to sit squirming uncomfortably and lying - wouldn't feel good about it.

Woah, I've just read this from the start and it's a fascinating thread. I am also of the opinion that civil partnerships should be made available for heterosexual couples (and marriage to gay couples too). I signed that Equal Love petition a couple of years ago now .

It sucks that DP and I have no legal recognition (other than wills). I hate it. But I will NOT take part in a ceremony that turns me into a wife - there's no getting away from it, I would be a wife, he would be my husband, two things I have never wanted or been interested in - and I would feel a complete utter hypocrite. Why should the whole thing be tainted with such uncomfortable feelings, when I would be thrilled and excited about undergoing a CP - it would be modest, financially, but would still damn well include rings and a nice party!!

People like wamster seem to think that if I want legal recognition, then I should want to be a wife. This is not the case.

I don't see what the problem is. Plenty of other countries are progressive enough to have introduced CPs for straight couples, and I have no doubt they will be here too; it's just a matter of time.

Telling me are you?your indignant ire is misplaced,but as you are

and I'm telling you that when the NHS legal teams have to get involved relatives do at times trump the allocated friend. it'll NEVER be as comprehensive as a "real" NOK, KIN trump it at times

Yes and clearly I'm talking about the medical/healthcare side of nok.other aspects go see a solicitor

"Nok needs to be robustly recorded,can do it with gp and if appropriately recorded and with a nok who is an adult with capacity then should be ok"

YESSSSS but that still doesn't make them NOK in ALL circumstances! that only really applies to being informed about medical things / being called in emergency. There are other aspects to being a FULL NOK that it wont cover

Nok needs to be robustly recorded,can do it with gp and if appropriately recorded and with a nok who is an adult with capacity then should be ok

I agree with all of scottishmummy says but also have to agree that if a person dies intestate (without a will-not being patronising here. I wasn't familiar with word myself until a few years ago) then the 'rules of intestacy' as to inherits the estate of the deceased person will apply in the UK (not sure about Scotland) which is:

1, Spouse of deceased
If no spouse...

2, Children of deceased
If no children..

3, Parents of deceased

and so on. If estate is worth more than a certain amount -as said by bachsingingmum- then the rules she said apply.

The point is cohabitees are not mentioned. I think this is only right-I don't think I'd necessarily want my partner to inherit if the relationship were a casual one and it's not up to the state to decide the seriousness or not of a couple's relationship for them. Such things shouldn't be automatic like a spouse or child.
Although I believe cohabitees can claim from their late partner's estate under the 'Dependency Act' or some such legal thingie.

What I think would be of more worth than an 'equal love' campaign is a government campaign to inform people about the importance of making wills etc if in a serious cohabiting relationship.

and actually in the NHS when the legal teams get involved in very complicated end of life issues the "my neighbour is my NOK" request is sometimes challenged too

Yes it's different premise but people should put finances etc in order and do a will.can't compel them but easier for all if will is written.

but people do misunderstand and think their NOK for NHS and similar purposes = their NOK for probate purposes if there's no valid will. its not (unless that person is NOK under sucession)

Well onus is on individual to be clear whom nok is
Can't expect authorities to be mind readers and know it's your best pal and not your parents for example.if it is significant then needvTo notiminate a nok

scotishmummy that applies to thinks like who to call if conditions change while in hospital

but if the person dies without a will the NOK reverts to the traditional hierarchy and is not necessarily that person

if you want to be legal partners go solicitor or get married if straight.cp if gay
no other convoluted equality or somesuch needed

anyone can be nok rosie,you don't need s convoluted campaigh.any adult woyh capacity can be a nok. youre over complicating and overstating this. no comparable arrangement to cp is required

i posted this earler will re-post about nok

just for the record marriage doesnt=sort out nok.anyone can be your nominated nok

inengland nok, is not defined by law and can be any capeable adult.
in scotland nok is also not defined there is no legal definition of Next of Kin in scotland and it can be whoever a person appoints. Usual Practice was this would be deemed to be the closest relative (by blood or marriage) but it can in fact be anyone you choose. If there is any dubiety here it may be worth you nominating your next of kin in a written format if you wish. scotland did discuss whether cp would automatically be nok, but did not go down that route. in reality these days most trusts and gp acknowledged and aware nok not necessarily immediate family

common myth is that it is family only-this is not the case. you can nominate your next of kin, you must inform the NHS trust, GP etc.get it documented in notes this can be a cohabitee. all competent adult patients are asked to nominate their next of kin formally on admission to hospital. This is not simply a contact number but has potential significance, as the nominated person must be willing to best reflect what they believe would have been your wishes in the event of your incapacity or death. It is this person that staff would turn to for advice/guidance/help about your care if you were unable to respond yourself. For example, this might be because you are unconscious or unable to communicate due to illness or injury.

in the event of your death, it is your next of kin who would be consulted about bereavement issues such as making funeral arrangements, arranging a hospital post mortem or organ/tissue donation.

the role of next of kin is to express your likely wishes when you cannot.Your next of kin cannot consent or withhold consent for care on your behalf. But as your next of kin, their views on what you would have decided will be sought. These views will contribute to the decision that the clinicians caring for you (and who have a duty to act in your best interest) will make regarding your treatment and care. Thus, if you cannot make that decision for yourself, the final decision of care rests with the clinician in charge of your care.

If, in the case of an emergency, were nok not nominated nhs would seek advice from whoever we believe to be 'closest' to you and best able to reflect your wishes; for example, your current partner or closest relative.

Historically, the next of kin was the spouse or nearest relative of the patient, but Your next of kin does not need to be a blood relative or spouse; they can be your long-term partner, cohabitee or even a close friend.

rosie,your a bit off mark.anyone can be nok.+-

Blackduck, when you say the "other stuff", what do you mean? Is it just the word "marriage" that you object to, or is it something else? I'm struggling to see what there is to object to in a basic civil ceremony other than that it's called marriage, which obviously does carry baggage.

i dont understand wanting a cp for heterosexuals to replicate marriage
if you want legal protection and a status then get just get married.cp replicates marriage just different semantics and title.i see no value in an alternative ceremony for heterosexual couples when marriage is available to them already

i understand cp for gay couples as previously this option was not available to them.cp offers gay couples a legal status that was previously not open to them. heterosexual couples have always had marriage

I think if it's true that "There is a petition to overturn the twin ban on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships" the people there are missing the point. It's not that partnerships and marriages are so very different--in fact the partnership concept was created to allow people (same sex couples) to have legally recognized relationships that historically only opposite-sex couples could have. It was just too much to ask Mrs and Mr Public to accept "same sex marriage" so they called it something different, but I believe that once it's done, it's legally the same.

So when someone talks about a "ban on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships" what they're talking about is just being allowed to call it a marriage if your partner matches your chromosomes, or a partnership if s/he doesn't. Nothing changes but the name.

But then if someone says "I'd be willing to sign up for a partnership but not a marriage" does that indicate that what the relationship is called is actually important? Marriage comes with too much baggage, maybe.