Civil partnerships to be opened to opposite sex couples

Do people generally think that this will definitely happen, and in the next couple of years? Are the govt compelled to sort this out, even if an election results in a different party/parties in power?

I had booked a marriage at our local registry office for next month but when I heard the news on the radio yesterday I called the registrar and cancelled. I told her why and asked her to put us on the CP waiting list. She said we would be the first I had a long conversation with her when I booked and she remembered me as one half of "the Inheritance Tax" couple.

I too was expecting Civil Partnerships to go (hence the marriage booking) so I'm really pleased about this. Hope it happens soon because at the moment if either DP or I die we'd have to sell up.

geeka I just came back this and was trying to remember what I had forgotten... and that was it!

There were 2 sisters in the news not so long ago. They had lived together for decades and wanted to find some easy way to leave each other 'first call' on their home, money, possessions. But the law was stymieing them. Too long, too convoluted, too expensive etc.

A CP between them would have solved their issues.

Sure, I've seen quite a lot of misinformation about marriage, CPs, and cohabiting in this and other threads. Nothing new under the sun.

However, I've yet to see a coherent argument for why opening up CPs to heterosexual couples is a bad idea per se. Frankly, I'd like to see CPs opened up way beyond romantic relationships so that siblings, friends, etc. could also enter into binding contracts if they wanted to. I've yet to see a good argument for why any consenting adult should not be allowed to enter into a formal CP with one other consenting adult, regardless of the nature of the relationship, for the purpose of mutual protection in legal and inheritance matters. Like the French PACS, but with bells on.

Touché.
I misread your post as per marriage. I apologise.
I will not apologise for anything else I've said regarding the similarities of both legal institutions and the amount of mis-information on this subject on either this thread or similar in the past.
This development runs the risk of people sleepwalking into thinking they have protection from civil law simply because they live together. Marriage is recognised internationally. CPs are not.
I am sick of hearing how woke people who want a CP are because of the baggage of marriage. Most CPs I have ever met refer to themselves as husbands or wives.
Many things in society have paternal baggage. Land-ownership, voting etc. that doesn't mean people's expectations of marriage have not moved on and people have equal relationships nowadays. An abusive partner will be an abusive partner regardless if it is a CP or marriage.
And the dissolution rates will be similar. This is a populist announcement and in practice will be a nightmare

Do you mean to be so rude, iwanttomove?

I linked to the source for CP stats in an earlier post, and that page links to the respective page for marriage stats. Your quoted numbers above are incorrect because they are for total number of marriages in England and Wales, not number of same-sex marriages. The ratio I referenced above was explicitly "For every 5-6 marriages between same-sex couples, there's 1 new CP".

When you look at the correct numbers, my quoted ratio is supported:

2014: Same-sex marriages 4850; Civil partnerships 1683
2015: Same-sex marriages 6493; Civil partnerships 861

When those two years are pooled to smooth out variability - a common approach in calculating ratios of events - you get the following:
2014-15: Same-sex marriages 11343; Civil partnerships 2544
= ratio 5.5:1

Since the ONS has a lag reporting the marriage numbers in England and Wales for 2016 and 2017, we can't make the same direct comparison for those years. However, we do know that the number of CPs per year has stayed stable (indeed, increased slightly) for 2016-17, so it's not a case of CP numbers dwindling away. It's possible that the number of same-sex marriages has continued to increase 2016-17, but we don't have any evidence of that at the current time.

Therefore, on the basis of the most recent figures available, I stand by the assertion that, in England and Wales, for every 5-6 marriages between same-sex couples, there's 1 new civil partnership.

I hope your job doesn't involve teaching maths or accounts

Part of my job (as a STEM academic) involves lecturing university students in statistics and research methods. Attention to detail, such as selecting the correct comparison group, is a critical component of valid statistical design and analysis. I don't insult students who make mistakes, however.

I'll help you. From the ONS website
Marriages in England and Wales
2015 (latest figures) 239020
2014 247372

CPs in England and Wales
2017 908
2016 890
2015 861
2014 1683

I hope your job doesn't involve teaching maths or accounts

geeka
Source please
I work in this area and your stats do not bear reality.

So what about gay couples who continue to opt for CP rather than marriage? I linked to it up above.

For every 5-6 marriages between same-sex couples, there's 1 new CP. That's in England and Wales (not NI), where both options are available, and the proportion appears to be staying pretty stable year on year.

Is it ok to disenfranchise these people by removing CPs from the statute book because you don't see a point in having them?

@iwanttomove
Well said!

And some of us work in that area every day and can see the misinformation and misunderstanding on here for what it is. Talk of upgrading, only marrieds argue, CPs will be easier to end blah blah blah.
In this country, there is no difference in the legal status of these two contracts and those shouting shite about it look foolish

This was an endeavour to have what gay people were thrown because it wasn't fair on the privileged woke white straight couple.
And those of you who insist on denigrating those on here who are married (I'm not) as 'naice' in your patronising tones simply inflame the conversation.
The ONLY reason I can see to consider keeping CPs now that marriage is available to all is because of the bigots in NI who still can't conceive of the idea that marriage should be available to same sex couples.

If civil partnerships are so "pointless", why do a large minority of gay couples still opt for them in place of marriage?

From the Office for National Statistics:

The number of civil partnerships formed increased in 2017
This is the second year that civil partnership formations have increased since the introduction of marriages of same-sex couples was announced in December 2013. There were 908 civil partnerships formed in England and Wales in 2017, a rise of 2.0% compared with 890 in 2016 (Figure 1). However, civil partnership formation numbers in 2017 were around one-sixth of what they were in 2013 before the introduction of marriages of same-sex couples in March 2014.

I never wanted to be a wife. Never wanted either a big wedding or to have to explain to relatives why we got married without inviting them. Never wanted said relatives calling me Mrs X even though I've told them several times I never changed my name from Ms Y (or Dr Y, if they insist on fucking titles). Never wanted to have to argue with my bank that ticking "married" in the online form does not mean I have a previous surname that I'm not disclosing.

Of course marriage enshrines misogyny. Society has always been misogynistic so it's no surprise that marriage, as a social tradition, is absolutely embedded in misogynistic practices and expectations.

Some people don't mind that or don't notice it; fine for them. But for those of us who can't unsee it, yet still want the legal and tax protections of a formal contract, a CP offers an alternative route. That's why some of us are pleased it might become an option for straight couples as well as gay. Why is that so incomprehensible / infuriating to some people?

I am pleased to hear this news, I could never understand why civil partnerships were only for homosexual couples.
The idea of bringing in brand new legislation which was discriminatory from the start!? How did that even happen? confused

There is no logical reason to extend CPs to straight couples other than to stoke their privileged wokeness.
I do agree with that, it's a bit inflammatory but I can't understand this personally either. A marriage costs less than £200 for a room, a registrar and a short ceremony. You can get married in Vegas, in scuba gear at the bottom of a swimming pool, skydiving, wherever. You don't have to take your husband's name. I guess one could still see it as patriarchal but surely the word "wife" can be reclaimed as any other words could?
My point of view and feelings on this are irrelevant as the Tories have forced through gay marriage and now this anyway.

I think the fact that so many people have children before marriage nowadays has primarily benefited MEN, not women. If marriage were still so patriarchal, men would be desperate to do it! As things stand, a man can quite easily find a woman who is willing to have children with him, provide free childcare and housework, yet not have any access to his assets, pension, etc. if he decides to leave her for someone else.
This is very true. Yet some women still believe in the concept of common law marriage, which doesn't exist!
I wonder if the pressure to spend spend spend on the "big day" puts people off. And civil partnership for straight people is a get-out for that.

Question for those who say they would choose a CP over marriage because the latter has a patriarchal history: surely CPs are just as problematic, given their homophobic history? They were brought in as an attempt to shut up gay people and stop them from fighting for marriage. I'm not trying to goad; I honestly can't understand why homophobia is any better than sexism.
I disagree that civil partnership was homophobic. I think it was groundbreaking and I remember the vote as if it was yesterday.
Not all us gays wanted or agreed with gay marriage, you know.
I would have a civil partnership instead of a marriage to this day.

I have to add, I'm another of those who don't understand why straight people wanted civil partnerships, and from a purely selfish point of view I'm a little disappointed, us homos don't have our own thing any more. I thought that marriage was for straight people and civil partnership for us, but the law has been changed twice now so I guess we have to go back to aping heterosexuals.

Be incredulous and scathing if you must, but you just sound like someone who can’t believe anyone might have a differing opinion to your own. Which doesn’t give the best impression of you does it?

You sound pretty angry Hen. but it's still a bizarre comment to make. Cohabiting families are not all honey and puppy dogs. CPs won't be any different day to day than a marriage. I defy you to show me a dictionary anywhere that says the definition of wife is 'property of a man'.
You are indeed talking angry shite. There is no logical reason to extend CPs to straight couples other than to stoke their privileged wokeness.

Aye I agree with that too. The entire system is set up and loaded against women. That’s the crux of it isn’t it?

I know my (our) situation is unusual, and I wish there was a better way for women to have legal and financial protection (because career breaks to have children tend to dent our earning potential) without having to get married.

If it’s a choice that’s fine, but having to do it isn’t a choice if that makes sense.

Just to be clear, Hen, I don't think there's anything wrong with straight couples having a CP, even though they have homophobic origins. I just think that if one agrees that the homophobic history of CPs is a thing of the past now that same-sex marriage is legal, the same logic should extend to the misogynistic origins of mixed-sex marriage. I don't agree that marriage is necessarily patriarchal nowadays - in fact, I would argue that it's generally less patriarchal than cohabiting. Obviously there are exceptions (like your own circumstances, where all the assets are in your name) but depressingly, I think the growing trend toward having children before marriage has actually harmed women as a class. Men still screw over women all the time - it's just that those women are now less likely to have legal recourse when it happens.

Valanice1989 fair points, I agree that homophobia isn’t taken as seriously as it should be. Absolutely agree.

I’m in an (apparently) unusual position in that all the assets are mine legally (house, cars, lump sum) and I’d just want to make sure that if I die first, DP doesn’t get fucked over. That would be my main reason for it, along with next of kin privileges and DS1 being able to stay with DP if I died before he was 18.

Tbh, if I can do all that with some kind of will/legal document without having to do any CP then I would, but the two solicitors I’ve asked said it wasn’t binding.

Excellent job guys! Finally some good news. :)