Heterosexual Civil Partnerships begin today. Anyone signing on the line ?

[patchworkpatty]

At last , today there is finally a legal process to protect the property, inheritance, pensions and entitlements of all those (mostly) women - who are seriously economically disadvantaged by being in a relationship with children and unmarried . Economic disadvantaged because of reduced earning power and impeded career advancement. Especially for those who are with partners who 'don't believe' in marriage.. or 'don't want a fuss' ..

Or am I being cynical in thinking that 'not believing in marriage' or 'wanting a fuss' really means 'I'm not giving you, the mother of my children any legal right to my home, pensions, savings and belongings. ?

That in fact the only people this new law will help are people with a 'conscientious objection to the patriarchy for marriage'.. who are almost certainly middle class good income earners .
Leaving the vast majority of cohabitating women with children, who earn either nothing or much less than their partners as unprotected as they ever were. ?

Or am I being cynical in thinking that 'not believing in marriage' or 'wanting a fuss' really means 'I'm not giving you, the mother of my children any legal right to my home, pensions, savings and belongings?

Nope.

That in fact the only people this new law will help are people with a 'conscientious objection to the patriarchy for marriage'.. who are almost certainly middle class good income earners

I know someone exactly like this, so again I totally agree.

Interesting. I agree with you OP. In what way is a civil partnership different from marriage if it confers the same rights? Isn't it marriage by another name?

It most certainly is marriage by another name and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. If people dont want a wedding they could have taken themselves to the registry office for the same amount surely.

I agree OP. If I were in a relationship I'd choose CP over marriage for sure. I would also want minimal fuss and not change my name. So people would hardly notice, other than I'd have a legal document.

Marriage is old fashioned and the circus surrounding it is pathetic, driven by women in most cases.

I don't really know anything about this but could it benefit, for example, single siblings who have never married but who live together.....or am I being a bit dim?

I don't see the point of civil partnerships. It is perfectly possible to marry and not involve religion or a huge celebration.

The thing that I find bizarre about this is the assumption by many that you can't have a marriage without ;
Being 'given away'
Promising to 'obey' your husband.
Changing your surname.
A dress, card, flowers, hymns, vicars, bridesmaids, favours (and all the other million and one things invented by the wedding industry .

All wrong.
You can go to a registry office in your jeans and say your own vows to each other. Witnessed by two strangers whisked off the street or nearby shops.. who sign the register.. no music , no flowers. It's been around for years and called a registry office.

I agree again OP.

Dh and I did a quicky registry office ceremony. No “wedding” to speak of.
I don’t see what the difference is between that and a civil partnership.

Funmummy48 at present, Civil registration is only available to non-related couples . It is meant to be a 'more secular' method of recognising two peoples union.

'not believing in marriage' or 'wanting a fuss' really means 'I'm not giving you, the mother of my children any legal right to my home, pensions, savings and belongings.

Yup, and there will be a significant number of women about to get a huge wake up call.

I’m glad it’s now legal. It was a strange anomaly that the government didn’t think about when they invented civil partnership as a way of getting gay marriage through a few years later.

That being said, I do agree that the people who should be being protected won’t be but I’m not sure what can be done there ..

I don't quite get the aggro. You don't think civil partnership is necessary, that's fine, don't have one. Other people clearly want it, so what's the harm in letting them have it? Literally takes nothing away from anyone.

I see Civil Partnerships as a stepping stone to getting same sex marriages recognised. Now same sex couples can get married I think civil partnerships are no longer necessary for anyone.

It’s not the same as marriage though, it doesn’t give you the same rights. I can see some people, mainly women, being hugely disadvantaged by this as it’s being touted as ‘just like marriage’ when it isn’t.

"they invented civil partnership as a way of getting gay marriage through a few years later."

There was a change of government between the one which introduced CPs (2005) and the changes to who can marry (2013)

It wasn't deliberate planning for one to lead to the other, as Labour and Conservative just don't cooperate like that, though I guess the introduction of CPs did open the door

I dont want to say my vows. I just want to go to the registrars, grab 2 witnesses and sign a bit of paper. Id be even happier if I could do this at my solicitors rather than going to the registrars. Im happy for civil marriages being available. Why does this annoy other people? More importantly, why do they care. Its not invalidating their marriage.

I think the law should be that when you have children with someone if you're the main carer then you can get access to property, pensions etc. I think this would actually be better for those who end up relying on the state.

So as long as you have children with someone, then you already have protection.

Is his idea flawed in any way?

For example, to divorce currently there are 5 grounds including adultery. Adultery isn’t a ground to dissolve a CP. how convenient is that for a fair few of these ‘don’t believe in marriage types’?

Techymummy that would involve a lot of proving and defining. Proofing they’re the parent, proving you are the main carer... very intrusive and would also shackle you to your babies father - horrendous prospect for so many women from abusive relationships.

I think that the sort of person who "doesn't want a fuss" to get married will just come up with another reason not to legallly formalise a relationship They don't understand it; they don't know how to apply for a civil partnership; they don't have time; their families wouldn't like it; you need a reception party which will be expensive; it won't be recognised in some countries. Etc.

We got married in a registry office

We weren't "allowed" to do religious stuff (suited us fine)

It was cheap quick and simple.

Probably very much like a civil partnership.....

Leaving the vast majority of cohabitating women with children, who earn either nothing or much less than their partners as unprotected as they ever were

There is school education for understanding married and unmarried rights and has been for some time. Or half an hour on MN

Or, controversially, people could take responsibility themselves for their own financial education

Congratulations to anyone now entering a opposite sex civil partnership. About bloody time

"The thing that I find bizarre about this is the assumption by many that you can't have a marriage without ;
Being 'given away'
Promising to 'obey' your husband.
Changing your surname.
A dress, card, flowers, hymns, vicars, bridesmaids, favours (and all the other million and one things invented by the wedding industry . "

I did all of the above except promise to obey. It's individual choice at the end of the day I suppose. That's a 'wedding' as opposed to 'getting married.'

Adultery isn’t a ground to dissolve a CP. how convenient is that for a fair few of these ‘don’t believe in marriage types

It’s duplication as it’s already classic Unreasonable Behaviour