Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign

You are being discriminated against though AllMyBestFriends. You may not be bothered by it, but you are, as are all people in opposite sex partnerships. There is no good reason not to allow people in OS relationships to have a civil partnership. The Equal Love campaign even suggests that they should be expanded to include pairs of people in non-sexual relationships, like siblings or friends or long term housemates, which I would be fully in favour of. No reason why romantic relationships should be privileged in this way.

Yeah, I'm the one at a wedding sat inwardly eye rolling while a registrar tries to say that being given away and wearing a wedding ring are a sign or love rather than ownership.

Historically, women vowed to obey their husbands when they got married. We don't do that now. Marriage and weddings can change. We need more change.

I do see posters on MN who say that women should get married before having children, especially before becoming a SAHM. Not out of any traditional viewpoint, but as a form of legal protection for the woman. I admittedly don't know very much about the ins and outs of what this actually entails, but it seems relevant to the conversation.

I agree that traditional marriage was about inheritance and ownership of property (including women as property), and this is why I stated upthread that my ideal solution would be to have CPs rather than marriages, but I understand what gini says about the attitude of other countries (although in my ideal world, it's not a problem ).

I still think I would rather have one system for everyone rather than two almost identical but slightly different systems.

I'm not sure that as a straight person I am discriminated against because I cannot have a CP though. I certainly don't feel discriminated against.

www.gaystarnews.com/article/seven-ways-civil-partnership-isnt-same-marriage250113/#gs.nWWYuPg

consummation ie PIV sex is not relevant in civil partnership
historically, marriage was about inheriting property- control of women's sexuality followed from that
many people want nothing to do with marriage for those reasons

'Weddings can make people go a little funny '

Understatement of the century! Along with babies....

I can understand that. Weddings can make people go a little funny understatement

I just don't see why she would be ok with you having a civil partnership without guests but not a marriage. Or is it just that she would see it as a totally different thing and think that it doesn't count as a wedding?

(I'm not trying to be arsey btw, just curious)

My mil would never accept her son marrying without her present. I can't change her deep seated views on the matter. It would cause irreparable fractions in our family if we married without guests.

Getting married is just getting a legal document. Again, that's about a wedding, not a marriage. You could have a civil partnership ceremony and spend £50k celebrating it if you wanted. Just like you can get married and spend a few hundred quid.

It makes it sound like a civil partnership is just a lesser form of marriage. Like marriage but it doesn't count. Which IMO is one of the problems with having civil partnerships at all and why after they were brought in that there were further pushes until same sex couples could get married.

It's very simple. Same sex couples have the option of marriage or civil partnership. Opposite sex couples have only the option of marriage.
It's discriminatory.

Whether it's needed or whether civil partnerships should be ditched or whether marriage is an outdated institution is irrelevant.

It's a question of principle. Same rules should apply for same or opposite sex couples. In ending discrimination against same sex couples (rightly) the law of unintended consequences introduced discrimination against opposite sex couples.

Nothing to do with weddings and flouncy dresses.

Me too. I just don't want to get married. It's all very well saying don't spend twenty grand etc but if my immediate family found out I'd got married and not invited them it would be a shitstorm. My mil would be heartbroken. Whereas a civil partnership can be sold to them as a legal document, like a will.

oooh yes me, really annoys me that me and DP can't do this because we're not a same sex couple and I always thought it was really sad that a move to try and address discrimination actually introduced a load more.

Loki I disagree sorry, I don't want to get married.

There wouldn't really be any practical differences in this country AllMy. One important thing to think about would be how the relationship would be viewed abroad. Countries will usually recognise marriages legal contacted in other states but many don't have any legal concept of civil partnership. I would be concerned if I had a civil partnership that I could find myself not recognised as equivalent to married in some countries.

I agree with Gini - if civil partnership dwindles, then it'll become easier to just ditch it as the temporary measure it was meant to be.

I don't understand people who object to marriage because of historic laws relating to it - marriage law and rigts and responsibilities have rightly been improved over the years, so rape in marriage is no longer legal, marriage is not a defence to violence, marriage is no longer a ban on a woman being employed. Refusing to be involved on those grounds is like refusing to send your child to school because corporal punishment used to be used until 20 years ago.

Not that there aren't still some reasons why people might not want marriage - my one was the fact that spouses can't be forced to testify against each other, enabling child abusers and murderers to escape conviction. But if the state is offering a one-size-fgits-all contract with perks for accepting certain responsibilities, I dont think it should have to provide two similar varieties just because of historic associations.

Or, in countries where this is already possible, what are the actual differences?

"So this is all about the wedding and not about the marriage itself."

Thanks for the summary of this, I didn't feel very enlightened by the website.

The bit I've quoted sums this up for me I think.

My own personal solution would be to get rid of marriage and just have civil partnerships, if we were choosing one or the other. It seems totally pointless to have two practically identical situations where the only difference is the name.

If this campaign were to be successful, what actual differences would there be between an opposite-sex couple who were married, and an opposite-sex couple in a civil partnership?

One thing that is interesting is that the number of same-sex couples having a civil partnership has dramatically dropped since the option of marriage was introduced (about 85% drop) here
so it looks as if most same-sex couples who would have had a civil partnership are now marrying. I think the govt is probably taking a pragmatic line and waiting to see whether the civil partnership dies out naturally rather than taking parliamentary time to change things. Of course that is not a very principled approach but I guess they feel they have plenty of other things to worry about!

I don't think both are needed now that same-sex marriage exists. Promoting civil partnership further entrenches the concept of marriage as a sexist institution. People who choose to marry if a CP option exists will be pigeonholed as un-feminist to a greater extent than they are now. So I do not support this campaign.

The Isle of Man, not known for its liberal radicalism, has managed to introduce marriage and civil partnerships for all.

Thanks Gini99 I think that explains the campaign very well.

What is the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage?

I don't think the campaign is really about practical, financial or legal differences. As the website says: "There is essentially very little difference in legal terms between marriage and civil partnerships, with both conferring the same rights on things like tax, inheritance and pension provision. There are however a number differences between civil partnerships and marriage when it comes to the formation and administration processes."

Essentially it's a question of whether we should have different institutions available to couples that depend on their respective sexes. Actually their case went to the Court of Appeal several months ago but the decision hasn't been made yet.

Go and read the links on the website and you will be enlightnened.
Thanks - you're really winning me over to your cause.

I had a look at Why Does It Matter and the case seems to be:

• a form of legal union available to same sex couples should be available to opposite sex couples as well

Not totally unreasonable, but weren't civil partnerships brought in as a (temporary) way of appeasing religious groups, and can now be phased out since we have marriage equality?

• Many of those who support equality between women and men view marriage as a sexist institution – typified by traditions such as the father ‘giving the bride away’ to the husband, or the bride playing the role of ‘unspoiled’ virgin though the wearing of white

So this is all about the wedding and not about the marriage itself. I didn't do either of these things at my wedding.

• it 'others' LGBT couples

The government did publish a comparison of the two options in order to help same sex couples make a decision about which to adopt - unfortunately it's a Word document but it is available for download here.

Excluding cosmetic differences like the notice containing the Registration Authority of residence of both parties rather than their addresses for civil partnerships, the key differences appear to be:

• the certificate has both parents listed on it in a civil partnership

• you can't annul a civil partnership on the grounds of one party having a communicable venereal disease

• you can't dissolve a civil partnership on grounds of adultery

That's it.

Gay Star News wrote an article before same sex marriage was legalised which I think also highlights some differences:

• pension rights (although these seem to have been equalised)
• reciprocal recognition - countries where same sex marriage is legal don't recognise the validity of civil partnerships

There is a campaign, Morris, it went quite far but I think ran out of Parliamentary time or something. There's threads about it on here.

Just to point out a small caveat, in Scotland our birth, death and marriage certificates have always included mothers info as well as fathers. Death certificates of women list all surnames a woman has had, and are indexed under all.

The English way of registering BMDs is scandalous, I can't believe there isn't a huge campaign about it.

I support this, I'd rather be partnered civilly than married
(Though would we have to divorce first or could we just amend our contract?)

Oh my first biscuit - yum!