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. ?

It’s not the same as marriage though, it doesn’t give you the same rights.

Yes it does. That’s the point of it.

I agree that it’s going to put those (mostly male) marriage-refusers in an awkward position as their ‘don’t believe in it’, ‘don’t want a fuss’ argument will no longer work.

I think not having to say vows is a big plus, I’d much prefer to fill in a form.

Why should gay couples have a choice yet straight had to be married?

I've been married. I would consider a civil partnership though.

I wouldn't get married. Regardless of how simple you make the ceremony, it is an institution inextricably bound with female oppression and the patriarchy. Thrilled to be able to have legal rights without linking myself to that. Doesn't mean other people's marriages and weddings are less valid. If you don't like the idea, don't have one. Why can't we just have choice?

Just waiting for the first person to pipe up with "We're stronger as a couple because we won't marry each other! We don't need a piece of paper, we're in each other's wills!".

I would absolutely have opted for this if it had been available seven years ago, though in fact we had the registry office quickie in jeans with two witnesses, no rings, photos etc described in your second post, OP.

To me there is absolutely a difference, just as for some of my gay friends there was a difference between being allowed to have a civil partnership and being allowed to marry. For me the history and associated baggage of marriage are negative and patriarchal. I would have preferred a form of union which emphasised partnership and legality.

I agree that it’s going to put those (mostly male) marriage-refusers in an awkward position as their ‘don’t believe in it’, ‘don’t want a fuss’ argument will no longer work

^^yup.

So, something very similar to marriage, but called by another name. Let's hope some of those who look down on marriage might consider this then before blindly chucking in their lot with some feckless tosser who'll leave a few kids down the line. I can't imagine why anyone decides to bring kids into the world without some sort of recognised union, with all the rights it confers (to all involved parties). Nice if you think 'it'll never happen to us', but it does, often, and all the more as men can freely leave without any obligation to the woman and children.

Here is an outline of the differences between the two from a government website: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/851152/Marriage_and_Civil_Partnership_in_England_and_Wales.pdf

I can’t see any disadvantages of civil partnership as compared to marriage myself, although I do need to look into it a bit more so following this thread with interest.

From a personal perspective, I have been engaged for over 7 years. I have not felt able to marry in my home country, England, as the marriage certificate only lists the names of the fathers of the bride and groom, not the mothers. As I was raised by a single mother and my father was abusive, I just can’t bring myself to sign a certificate with his name on it and not hers - I see it as state sanctioned deletion of women from history and hugely disrespectful to my mother. This is not the case for civil partnership so we might get booked in for 2020, delighted!

Interesting that the OP mentions it’s for middle class types, I guess I qualify for that now as I have a professional job but the grief I have got from other professional women when I explain I don’t want to get married due to the marriage certificate issue - I had to stop telling people! In my experience middle class types are super traditional. Feminism is not cool.

Yes, I think it might not help those who are already financially vulnerable through having children with marriage-refusers but it might open the eyes of others to the real reasons behind the refusal before they commit to having children. However I still think there will be many who will not do either and hope it all works out ok.

I am absolutely not against Civil Partnerships for same/opposite sex couples ! If it's what floats your boat then go for it.
There really are no differences between the heterosexual CP and marriage.
Except ..

	A marriage certificate requires just the names of both partners’ fathers, while a civil partnership certificate requires the names of both parents

	Civil partners cannot call themselves ‘married’ for legal purposes

	A marriage is ended with divorce by obtaining a decree absolute, while a civil partnership is ended with dissolution by obtaining a dissolution order

None of which makes a jot of material difference when it comes to the important stuff like money, property, pensions and inheritance. Therefore, I can't understand why anyone who has sufficient concern for their 'common law' financially reliant/disadvantaged spouse, to be enthused to offer CP - would not have already entered into a registry office marriage.

No - my gripe with the new CP is that it's being hailed as the solution to all those people in common law relationships with little legal protection due to a 'conscientious objection ' ..

When the reality is that most poorly paid, part time working mums or sahp's who find themselves in a position where the man holds all the financial cards.. will NOT benefit one iota... and have never given a shit about middle class notions of the 'patriarchy of marriage' ..

If the man had wanted to 'share all his worldly goods' (a condition of both marriage and CP) then he would have done so prior to children- or at the very least, soon after.

IMHO the very best thing that could be done - is to make the rights (or lack of) those having children without marriage or civil partnership, are instilled into EVERY school child during Personal care and Health Ed lessons.

I do not prescribe retuning to the dark days of shaming unmarried mothers, everyone has the right to make their own decision. However the shocking lack of knowledge from those who believe that cohabitating infers some form of rights , let alone the non-existent status of 'common-law wife' means that the very best way to sort out this imbalance , is to arm teenagers with accurate information. Then for them to make decisions from a point of knowledge rather than ignorance.

With the easiest way to avoid this situation is to refuse to give a partner the commitment of raising a child together if he isn't prepared to give you the commitment of Marriage or CP.. as once the baby is here your 'bargaining position' has all but collapsed .

I'm doing it...for the sole reason that I don't want to get married again (been there done that, got screwed over). I don't want to "belong" to anybody. We' d rather not do it at all and we're only doing it purely for financial reasons there will be no photos, no special outfits, I won't have to change my surname for legal documents and nobody in the family will know about it until they have to. As pp said it puts the relationship on a equal level...you're partners and not "the mrs".

Even within a church ceremony there’s the religious segment and the separate legal (signing of the register) portion. If you don’t sign, it’s not a legally binding contract - which is what a marriage is, with a promise to God thrown in.

There was no need for a civil partnership. We already had a secular ceremony. It’s just we didn’t have a common use alternative word for marriage - which the religious establishment wanted to keep as theirs and so it muddied the political waters. The church should never have been able to have their cake (marriage) and eat it (rights over the civil ceremony).

So, call it what you will but there will always be those selfish, self serving fuckers who want a quick, easy exit when it suits.

Is this the result of heterosexual people claiming 'discrimination' and actually being taken seriously? I thought we should scrap CPs now same-sex marriage is legal and we don't need a pretend marriage for the gay people.

It's just another way to get married. It's another option but it is still a legal commitment, and those who don't want to legally commit will still 'not see the point'.

ChateauMyself Sorry, you are incorrect. There is absolutely no reference to God in the Registry office ceremony .

God or any religion is strictly banned from the registry office ceremony . Can't even have hymn music playing.

And why did we let religion try and claim 'ownership' over the word marriage? My wedding had FA to do with religion, as much through choice than because we couldn't.

The wording of the ceremony might be archaic but marriage gives you powerful protection under law as a mother of children and a dependent, especially if your spouse earns more and is a stingy bastard . When I got divorced I realised how screwed I would have been if we hadn't got "that bit of paper" twenty years previously. The court here in the UK wants to see fairness and goes to a lot of trouble to scrutinise arrangements when things break down, unlike in other countries.

If the same protections and scrutiny after dissolution applies with a CP it's worth having. Common law doesn't go as far as most people think. Congrats to anyone partnering up

I won't have to change my surname for legal documents

You don’t have to do this with marriage though. I know very few women who have changed their names these days. It never occurred to me to change mine.

I can’t see any disadvantages from civil ceremonies either.

Educate women and men who want financial support pre dc. Let people get married if they choose. Let people have a civil ceremony if they choose. They’re not mutually exclusive.

This notion that only middle class women are against marriage and working class women are so weak marriage is their only hope is frankly appalling. Aside from the arrogance it’s incredibly damaging pushing women to think that they are part of a class who if they wish to be financially secure need to rely on men however miserable it makes them and that only the middle classes can have freedom.

Can any of those who are now thinking of entering into a CP say they are in the category of 'financially disadvantaged'.. i.e. Sahp/low wages . Live in a home owned by partner.
Earn less than partner. ? Have no pension whilst partner does ?

Because I cannot believe that anyone with the responsibility of children would forgo ALL that security, when they are so disadvantaged, ENTIRELY down to the barely existent differences between Marriage and CP .

I suspect that it is only those who are NOT financially disadvantaged, are the only ones who can 'afford ' their particular objections /beliefs with regard to marriage ... and therefore the new CP will only benefit them and do nothing to protect women in lower income brackets .

@Aliensrus

I read somewhere that mother's names will be added to marriage certificates this year as well as or in place of father's name.

As a single mother, I would be hurt if my dc had to exclude me from any future marriage certs and record their absent father's name instead so I understand exactly.

What happens of you decide you don't want to be civally partnered anymore?

Is it easier than divorce?

One difference is that you can haVe the names if both of your parents on a couple certificate whereas you can only have the name of your father on a marriage certificate, or that was the case when we covered our cp to marriage in 2015

A civil partnership doesn’t disadvantage vulnerable partners in comparison to marriage.

If anything it advantages more as many will sign up to it that wouldn’t marriage.

I get that it’s a very MN thing to warn unmarried mothers of the financial dangers of remaining that way should the relationship break down. I get it and I do agree with it. I was unmarried after having my kids for a while (but it didn’t really matter as was a high earner and had savings etc ..) got married for protection purposes once we decided it was a real possibility for me to become a SAHP.. exactly as women are advised to do on here over and over.

The conversations on here that bother me more though are ones where the OP calls a terrible man “a good father” which I see constantly and where women have such low expectations of men that they are thankful for the tiniest crumb - turning up when they are giving birth, looking after their own children once in a while and ignoring them whilst doing so, doing one random job around the house..
What about all the women, including married ones, that are expected to pay for everything for the children out of their pot while the man does what he wants with his? Again, this comes up again and again.
The marriage bit is only half the story. Women are expecting far too little and putting up with too much. Signing the piece of (important) paper doesn’t do anything about that.