Civil partnerships to be opened to opposite sex couples

joystir59 but you can under the terms of being “sexually unfaithful” classed as unreasonable behaviour.

It’s just a different name.

You know you can't get a CP dissolved on grounds of adultery don't you?

I agree with that to be fair, I think overhauling the whole thing and making it fair and not misogynistic/homophobic would be the ideal solution.

YeTalkShiteHen, yes, I understand the various objections to marriage as a historical institution. No issue with that at all. I just think it's a bizarre quirk of British law that could see the way it's resolved being by having two identical systems, both with fairly dubious backgrounds, instead of one straightforward thing.

So, we'll end up with two identical parallel systems for registering stable monogamous romantic partnerships that are called different things

One implies and indeed in the language used implies a woman is the property of her husband. The other doesn’t.

That’s the key for me.

Ah, English law. The perfect example of the cobbled-together bodge job.

So, they're trying to change it so that eventually, marriage will reflect Civil Partnership by having both parents recorded fairly. And a number are at pains to point out that the distinctions between the two things are negligible, and while there are still issues with certain specifics, those can be ironed out with ongoing legislative action or policy changes.

So, we'll end up with two identical parallel systems for registering stable monogamous romantic partnerships that are called different things. Delightfully bonkers.

One other difference is that marriage certificates have space to record only the father of each person getting married. Mothers are completely ignored. Since marriage certs are historical documents as well as legal ones, they represent an ongoing, concrete example of women being written out of history.

Civil partnership certificates record details of both mothers and fathers; far more equitable. It's one of the reasons I would have preferred a civil partnership to marriage, had it been available at the time. I can't overlook the patriarchal baggage of marriage, but civil partnership is far more neutral as contracts go.

There's a private member's bill in progress to include mothers' details on marriage certs, so it may be changed eventually. Not yet, though.

I am a bit surprised. After the Supreme court ruling, I thought that the govt would seek to abolish CP as the rate of take up has plummeted since same sex marriage was introduced.

I suspect they did it this way round for pragmatic reasons. The complexity of the legislation needed to abolish CP would be greater. It is simpler for them to do it this way round.

I could never be a 'wife', because of the historical baggage. DP and I will be signing up asap to be officially 'partners'.

On another note, does spousal privilege exist for Civil Partnerships? I know that my friend is a Doctor married to a Pharmacist, so if either of them confessed to the other that they'd fatally cocked up their calculations, the other one couldn't be compelled to testify. Just wondering if that's still one (rather obscure) area where marriage is different to CP. Any legal beagles out there can clear this one up? May post on another section...

YetAnotherSpartacus, I don't disagree at all about the 'love marriage' thing. I used the phrase 'romantic partnership' to distinguish between that and a brother/sister partnership, or one between two friends who have no sexual or romantic motive or connection.

Also we like our relationship as it is and somehow marriage feels like it would bring a whole emotional statement with it

Yeah. 'Wife' has always left a nasty taste in my mouth. There are still social expectations put on wives, I think, to put HisCareer first and play 'housewife' and all that. Fuck that. My career and income is more important to me than his and I've always made this abundantly clear. As well as simply thinking marriage is bullshirt and weddings nauseating I didn't and don't want the added fight of explaining why I am not a 'good wife'. Not being conventional and 'naice' from the get-go leaves more wriggle room for not having to conform if that maks sense.

I am a bit surprised. After the Supreme court ruling, I thought that the govt would seek to abolish CP as the rate of take up has plummeted since same sex marriage was introduced. However I do remember the woman in the Supreme court case said on the day of the judgement that the LBGT community had been assured by the govt. that CP would not be abolished., So here we are. I think it will be interesting to see how popular it actually turns out to be. But at least it might be an alternative to Bridezilla phenomenon.

@POPholditdown I think every couple will have different reasons. For us we would like equality and security of legal and financial rights. Also we like our relationship as it is and somehow marriage feels like it would bring a whole emotional statement with it. Finally I really don't want a ceremony and all that goes with it. I know we could just get married with witnesses off the street but suspect that would go down rather badly. This way we can sign our documents, put it away in a drawer and carry on as we are

I'm of the opinion that if a society thinks it's a good idea to have some sort of legal recognition for stable monogamous romantic relationships, then there should be one, simple contract recognised by the state and there's an end to it

I guess I don't privilege stable monogamous romantic relationships over others and I also recognise that 'love marriages' are a rather recent development. Marriage has for a rather longer time been a business deal and still is in many instances.

What are the benefits of CP over marriage? There aren't any, nor should there be.

The idea of a French style system, where you can choose the churchiness, the marriage style or just a piece of negotiated paperwork - though I know that isn't the state of the CP, yet - could be a good legislative compromise.

MoltenLasagne, yep. I think it would solve an awful lot of the conflicts, actually. No more whining from people about redefining marriage and all that guff. No one needing to be going against their conscience by issuing 'marriage licenses' they didn't agree with. Churches free to conduct whichever ceremonies they wanted to - exclusively straight, or accomodating same sex partnerships if they want to, which many CofE churches do but can't.

I genuinely think a brave and sensible government should see it as the way forward.

Yy to florals post

I would have had a CP if I could. Mind you, stbxh would have probably taken it even less seriously than he did our marriage...

I understand the issues with it having a bit of a homophobic history (being introduced as a fudge because marriage wasn't allowed), but I guess it has less of a homophobic history than marriage does a misogynist one? Dunno, neither is ideal really.

I’ve a question for who are against marriage on here, hope you don’t mind.. is it so there are no labels, and you don’t become ‘just’ a wife? And so does the CP make it a more equal partnership (in the eyes of the law? Society?)

Just wondering, as me and dp plan to marry mainly to just be a legally bound couple, not to ‘show our love to the world’ if that makes sense. Hope I’ve expressed what I mean properly!

What are the benefits of CP over marriage?

Apologies I have read the previous responses, but I’m still not clear on why one would be preferred over the other.

Sounds similar to the French model Floral - where everyone has to have the bog standard council ceremony for the actual legal part and then usually has some separate "wedding" on a different day whether religious or not.

I appreciate that what other people prefer to do isn't really relevant, and I understand the naice wives being defensive comment a bit now another thread has been mentioned.

I'm of the opinion that if a society thinks it's a good idea to have some sort of legal recognition for stable monogamous romantic relationships, then there should be one, simple contract recognised by the state and there's an end to it.

There are already wildly different interpretations of the idea of 'marriage', what with the historical baggage, religious connotations and so forth, so I think it would be a lot less 'bureaucracatic jungle' to have a streamlined state involvement in the business and just have everything as a civil partnership. Marriage for those who see it as a sacrament or that sort of thing doesn't need to be specifically ratified by the state.

I thought one of the issues with CPs over marriage was that marriage conferred greater rights than CPs did purely because certain laws and rules used the terminology of "marriage". E.g. the right for people in the military to move into "married" quarters. Have these issues been resolved now?

I ignored those