Civil partnerships to be opened to opposite sex couples

Absolutely agree with that Lotta

My friends are both women and they wanted to get away from the traditional name change ideas, so I thought that was a good compromise (it helps that both their surnames are colours and the one they chose is a mix of the two).

I love DP, and we are fully committed to each other, but I don’t need or want his name and he doesn’t need or want mine. You also make a very fair point about women being addressed as Mrs even if they’re not a Mrs and don’t take his name!

Where did I criticise you for choosing not to get married? I don't think there's anything wrong whatsoever with not getting married! I said that the homophobic history of CPs is just as relevant as the patriarchal history of marriage, which I believe it is.

I mentioned marital rape and domestic violence because you said there haven't been changes in the law, not because marital rape being made illegal is something to be grateful for!

Of course domestic violence isn't taken as seriously as it should be, but homophobia still isn't taken seriously either. Gay people are still frequently treated as lesser. I can't understand objecting to the patriarchal history of marriage but not the homophobic history of CPs.

Unmarried women are still subject to patriarchy. Unmarried women are still subject to DV, unmarried women still take a career hit after having children. Unfortunately, unmarried women are (statistically) likelier than married ones to lose out financially after splitting with the father of their children.

The current set-up - men having families while refusing to enter a contract that will protect their partners in the event of a split - actually suits many men very, very well.

My friends who had organised a CP (which was then changed to a marriage because thankfully the law changed just in time!) came up with a lovely idea for name changes. They took the meaning of both their surnames and combined them to make a totally new one. Totally off point but just a really nice idea.

I HATED not having my own name, I resented it. Even if DP and I ever did marry (we won’t) I wouldn’t change my name again.

I don't think it'll do much to help women, except for the small minority who chose not to get married on an ideological basis.

Right, so you’ve spent all that time picking apart my opinions for what reason?

Because I don’t think like you and you don’t like it.

That’s not my problem.

And rape within marriage being illegal isn’t something we should be fucking grateful for!

Don’t kid yourself that DV is taken anywhere near as seriously as it should be. Nowhere near. If it was, 2 women a week wouldn’t end up dead at the hands of a man they are either with or used to be with.

Neither legislation changes have benefitted women, apart from being allowed to bring charges against a rapist (or being allowed to report him at least, charges aren’t likely are they?)

I’ve not criticised anyone who chooses to get married, but it would appear the opposite courtesy isn’t being extended.

Says more about them than it does about me.

What changes in law though? There haven’t been any benefitting women, and the idea of a wife being the property of a man hasn’t changed either.

There have been changes in the law - rape within marriage is illegal, domestic violence is taken much more seriously.

I've never met anyone in my life who believes that a wife is the property of a man. I'm sure people who believe that do exist, but people like that will just view a female civil partner in exactly the same way.

ODFO where did I minimise homophobia? I said that it hadn’t affected me, and that the CP originally being homophobic has been righted with the introduction of same sex marriage. But nice try, trying to paint me as a homophobe.

Maybe I should decide that actually being a wife, being raped, battered, abused and told I was fuck all because I was his property is far less important than something which doesn’t affect me and is no longer homophobic?

It's disgusting that those things happened to you, but if CP is no longer homophobic then I would argue that marriage is no longer necessarily misogynistic. In fact, marriage (and now, CPs) is one of the few ways that "women's work" can be financially recognised, especially that of SAHMs. Most women end up taking a career hit when they have children.

I don't think making CPs available to straight couples is a bad thing, but I don't think it'll do much to help women, except for the small minority who chose not to get married on an ideological basis. 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.

The campaign for mixed sex CPs always pissed me off a bit because it all came across a bit "they (gay people) have something we (straight people) don't have". Like they were hard done by, without any consideration for the context of their introduction.

That's said, it matters not a jot to me whether mixed sex couples use them or not. They're clearly marriage with a different name. If the name given to their partnership matters to people then that has no effect on me but the idea that calling it a CP rather than marriage will anyway effect he quality of said partnership is a bit nuts IMO.

But by that logic, hasn't the idea that women are the property of their husbands been righted over the years due to changes in the law, too?

What changes in law though? There haven’t been any benefitting women, and the idea of a wife being the property of a man hasn’t changed either.

I do think it's a shame that homophobia gets minimised because it only affects a small minority. But thank you for answering the question

ODFO where did I minimise homophobia? I said that it hadn’t affected me, and that the CP originally being homophobic has been righted with the introduction of same sex marriage. But nice try, trying to paint me as a homophobe.

Maybe I should decide that actually being a wife, being raped, battered, abused and told I was fuck all because I was his property is far less important than something which doesn’t affect me and is no longer homophobic?

Your agenda is petty and I’m pissed off you’ve tried to label me a bigot when I am not.

I’ll take that, it was homophobic in origin, absolutely which isn’t good.

However, that wrong has been righted with the introduction of same sex marriage (thank fuck!).

But by that logic, hasn't the idea that women are the property of their husbands been righted over the years due to changes in the law, too?

For me it’s as simple as I’m not gay, so homophobia (abhorrent as it is) has never played a negative and hurtful role in my own life. Misogyny and the connotations of the word wife, have.

I do think it's a shame that homophobia gets minimised because it only affects a small minority. But thank you for answering the question!

Lottapianos I am too tbh, no idea why it does. I couldn’t give a shit if people decided they wanted to get married, it’s not my business what they do.

But anyone who dares disagree must be stupid/wrong/beneath them. It’s actually quite amusing really.

Seriously, this is what you think some people think of when they hear the word marriage?

Yes. It has nothing but negative and traumatic connotations for me. Your inability to understand that not everyone thinks the way you do doesn’t change that.

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?

*Hoorah!

For people asking why someone might want this - marriage is not always a happy thing. For some, even the word marriage suggests arguments, abuse, control etc. Plenty of people who have bad experiences - or see them in their lives - swear they will never marry. Now there is to be another option, while still protecting loved ones*

I don't think I have ever read anything so ridiculous in all my time on mn. Seriously, this is what you think some people think of when they hear the word marriage? Let me tell you, cp dissolution rates will be identical to marriage dissolution rates. CPs are not marriage lite ffs. They are pretty much identical in all but name.

I don't want to be a wife or be married. The idea repulses me TBH. But I would like mine and dp's long-standing partnership legally recognised. Without heterosexual civil partnerships we have very limited rights, we are getting older and legal recognition of our commitment to each other would make life easier

This! Albeit written far more articulately than I managed.

I think it was really unfortunate that, throughout all the debates on CP and SSM, that marriage as an institution was unquestioningly accepted as "a good thing". An opportunity was missed, over and again, to have a considered discussion about the history and present day purposes of marriage.

The Law Society in Canada produced a document, a number of years ago now, entitled "Beyond Conjugality" which takes a critical look at marriage and proposes far-reaching changes. It wasn't implemented, but it's an interesting and thought-provoking read.

As one of the gays who was thrown this crumb, I've never, ever understood why straights can't see that it's just civil marriage with a different name.

Whilst I fully understand your anger at what CP originally was, you don’t seem to understand that it’s not the same at all. Because if it was, you wouldn’t describe it as a crumb would you?

Misogyny is the root of marriage, even the word wife means “property of her husband”.

Just as you have every right to feel how you feel about your own circumstances, that doesn’t mean you get to tell other women.

What's the difference? (religious marriages aside)

There isn't much difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage. CP was brought in to get round the opposition to gay marriage, but the law was entirely modelled on marriage.

Now that both marriage and CP will be open to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the biggest difference will be the name. The other differences are mostly technical.

It was a sop to the religious right by Tony Blair, because they couldn't stomach the thought of the gays getting 'married'.

As one of the gays who was thrown this crumb, I've never, ever understood why straights can't see that it's just civil marriage with a different name.

I’ll take that, it was homophobic in origin, absolutely which isn’t good.

However, that wrong has been righted with the introduction of same sex marriage (thank fuck!).

For me it’s as simple as I’m not gay, so homophobia (abhorrent as it is) has never played a negative and hurtful role in my own life. Misogyny and the connotations of the word wife, have.

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.

Joy You are wrong, see upthread for the link to the government's own page on Causes in a Civil Partnership.

Your post repeats an lie, and urban myth, a falsehood! Honest!