Civil partnerships to be opened to opposite sex couples

Honestly? I avoided the other thread because of the prevalence of threatened 'naice wives'.

I'm being handed my arse on the other thread, possibly for being homophobic... but my argument is that many people do want a legal partnership that has no connection with the idea of marriage, women as chattels etc.

it doesn't matter if someone else thinks marriage no longer has those connotations!

There are other countries with effective 'civil partnerships' for the same reasons. Why can't the UK?

Can you mention a few of those reasons?
I can see that historically marriage had the taint of 'ownership', but what are the problems with it now?

I'm happily married so I'm glad others have answered your question as I don't have strong feelings against marriage.

On the other hand I had no strong feelings about getting married.

^Can we settle on 'mostly painless'? I mean a little bit of suffering is good for the soul surely?

Good.
Now they just need to come up with painless vasectomy and I'll have 2 things i want.

CuriousaboutSamphire, thanks for that, it's answered one of the negatives I thought of. So yep, there we go, all good.

Agree with the point about why romantic relationships need more specific recognition than others. Historically that's been because of research done into the idea of marriage as a stabilizing effect on society. Take marriage out of the equation, I'm not sure what the reasoning would be.

Completely agree with you actually. There's no reason why sexual relationships should be privileged over other kinds of committed relationships

Exactly!

I'm not a naice wife. Apart from adultery not being grounds for dissolution, I can't see any real difference between the two situations bar the historical genesis, and I can see the adultery exception as a positive and a negative thing. I have no issue with people choosing to do as they wish and I've already said that, and I'm not remotely hot under the collar.

It's great to have options, I guess, and it's right that everyone, gay and straight, is equal. But beyond that? Don't really get it.

Apologies if this has already been pointed out

The main difference is that adultery is grounds for divorce, but not for dissolution of a civil partnership. Is simply NOT TRUE.

It is one of the Unreasonable Behaviours listed as a reason to dissolve a partnership. It is termed being sexually unfaithful and isn't in a category of its own, but it is there! I have no idea where that idea came from but it keeps on coming up, as it did on the other thread abut this!

www.gov.uk/end-civil-partnership/grounds-for-ending-a-civil-partnership

Anyone who wants to become a wife rather than a civil partner will still have the option to do so. It's a gain rather than a loss

I mean for me it's not enough. I think that anyone should be able to nominate anyone else to be the kind of significant other who might be a beneficiary, or make life and death decisions, etc. and it should be legally easier for anyone to enter into the kinds of financial relationships that marriages ultimately are - for example, friends buying a house together should be able to be protected, etc. But it's almost as if traditional naice wives think that their sacrifice should be rewarded.

Awesome. Now we will have true marriage equality

I don't get why so many naice wives don't get that other women might not want the same deal they have?

Give it a few decades, and I can't see why there won't be another group of people for whom 'civil partnership' doesn't have the same connotations.

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.

Who knew I’d ever agree with the Tories. When it comes in DP and I will do it.

I’ve been a wife. Never again. (No reflection or judgement on anyone else, it’s just not for us)

It isn't hugely dissimilar to marriage, to be honest, and is very much modelled on marriage, but with less historical baggage.

It was clearly illogical to extend marriage to same-sex couples on the grounds of equality while at the same time denying cp as an option to mixed-sex couples.

Great news ! DP and I have both been married before and are happy as partners as opposed to husband and wife. We've always wanted to iron out the legal disadvantages compared to being married so we can ! I'm delighted that gay couples can marry and now it seems equally fair that hetero couples can have a civil partnership. The government was never going to race to fix this as the whole living together generation starts to get to the age where inheritance tax will need to be paid

Couples can have a number of reasons not to marry and I'm glad they get another option.

Can you mention a few of those reasons?
I can see that historically marriage had the taint of 'ownership', but what are the problems with it now?

That is where I struggle. My gay friends couldn't wait to dump the CP when it became possible for them to marry.
They had to wait until their late sixties for the privilege.
Interestingly their marriage is still not considered equal when it comes to rights to their pensions.
We still have a long way to go in the struggle for true equality.

I think it's really odd, though I have nothing against it as an idea.

Civil partnerships were a fudge from the outset, to get out of allowing equal marriage. Now we have equal marriage, the best argument for keeping civil partnerships is to provide an alternative legally recognized romantic commitment to marriage, and therefore there is no reason to exclude heterosexual couples.

I genuinely don't see the point, really, though. It really, really seems like splitting hairs at this point, but I'm happy for people to be able to make the choice they're happy with.

Excellent news.

Couples can have a number of reasons not to marry and I'm glad they get another option.