Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

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

121 replies

patchworkpatty · 31/12/2019 08:38

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. ?

OP posts:
Aroundtheworldin80moves · 31/12/2019 10:36

I am happily married.

We had a wedding in a church. We had the hotel reception. There was nearly a legal hiccup so it could of turned into just a blessing and party, but it was sorted in time.

Separate to that, we have the legal contract- the decision to be legally joined. That was the important bit for us.

I can understand the objection to marriage historically, but CP is just the same by a different name. Im guessing you could have a CP in the morning, a church blessing in the afternoon and then a huge party in the evening for example.

joystir59 · 31/12/2019 10:37

You can't dissolve a cp on grounds of adultery unless they've changed it

Justjoinedforthis · 31/12/2019 10:39

I will be getting one to avoid a wedding. I know they are not mandatory, but if I got married and did not have a wedding my partner’s family would feel very slighted, especially the nans! I know you can just ignore other people’s feelings and it’s not their business, but if we can get the same legal protections without people getting upset then I am all for it. No one will be pissed they missed a Civil Partnership...the happiest administrative procedure of our lives!

Itsigginingtolookalotlikexmas · 31/12/2019 10:39

I would have done it, if I wasn't married. I was very reluctant to be a "wife" and didn't marry till later in life. I'd have been happier with this. (But not planning on divorcing just to do this!)

Uptheduffy · 31/12/2019 10:43

My wedding certificate has my mother's name (and mil) on it as well as male parents

Original poster
patchworkpatty · 31/12/2019 10:50

*Notenoughbookshelves

*
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.

Not really understanding your point. I don't see anywhere that anyone has suggested that 'only middle class women are against marriage ' .. In fact I would go as far to say that marriage is almost certainly the preserve of the middle classes . !

My point is that the new CP is being heralded as the 'solution' to those 'stuck in common law relationships' with little or no financial protection. .. whereas the reality is that (because of the very unimportant differences ) being financially independent (middle class, good earner, own pension, good education with opportunities) means Marriage or CP are a genuine choice -
Where the beliefs that one institution over rides the other for political/feminist reasons , becomes THE deciding factor in going forward .
Whereas poorer women may not even be aware that they have little in the way of rights outside marriage and that if they intend to stay at home to raise children or work part time - then Marriage (or now CP ) are essential to protect their futures.

I can not understand why anyone would offer themselves up to the commitment of child rearing. If he couldn't commit to the £46 to register a CP . (It was only £215 for a marriage!) but really ? Less than the price of a good takeaway. A refusal would give anyone a good indication of the father this person is likely to be !

OP posts:
Dipsydoodle · 31/12/2019 10:53

Definitely no religious elements in our registry office wedding we had a few weeks ago! It was entirely tailored to what we wanted.

I do agree that it'll be another thing to weasel out of for men who are happy to enjoy the benefits of a 'married' life but not put their money where their mouth is. But as you say, I think the number of people who haven't got married on conscientious grounds even though they actually need the legal protection will be low.

Dipsydoodle · 31/12/2019 10:57

We have both parents' names on our marriage certificate. In Scotland so don't know if it's different here.

Uptheduffy · 31/12/2019 10:58

Ah I'm in Scotland too

ChateauMyself · 31/12/2019 11:03

Patch
Apologies, I didn’t explain myself properly. I know there is no religious element within the civil ceremony.

I was trying to draw the distinction between the legal/religious element of a church wedding v the legal only ceremony of the CC. And yet the church has a grip on the word marriage which carried over into the CC.

The church should never have had their nose in the CC; which should have been the natural place for all those who didn’t want/couldn’t have a church (religious) wedding.

OddBoots · 31/12/2019 11:08

Isn't the main difference that a CP doesn't require sexual fidelity so if you want to have more sexual partners you can get a CP instead of getting married?

CommunistLegoBloc · 31/12/2019 11:12

To answer your question OP - my partner currently earns more than I do, by a fair way. I have no real pension to speak of (freelance) but hope to have a decent one as my business continues on an upward trajectory. So a CP is protection, it's equality, and it's got no links to do with God or men owning women.

Marshymallowy · 31/12/2019 11:16

Would happily be doing it but we live in Scotland. Things here are usually progressive but not this time. And yes I've written ro my MSP.

Squigean · 31/12/2019 11:32

Have some people never attended a marriage in a registry office? No religion, obeying, or giving away ownership. No need for rings, dressing up or a party.

There are 'vows' though I suppose for marriage. You need to declare there's no reason why you can't legally marry. That's all as far as I'm aware.

Sexual fidelity isn't a marriage exclusive.

Bluepeace · 31/12/2019 11:38

I thought civil partnerships didn't bring the same protections as marriage?

CharlotteMD · 31/12/2019 11:46

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. ?

Try taking responsibility for your self then and don't have children unless you are married ?.

Ilovetolurk · 31/12/2019 11:48

You can't dissolve a cp on grounds of adultery unless they've changed it

You can, as one of the grounds for Unreasonable Behaviour

otterturk · 31/12/2019 11:50

I'm considering it. I'm not financially disadvantaged. Your point is a very good one OP.

Ilovetolurk · 31/12/2019 11:50

Isn't the main difference that a CP doesn't require sexual fidelity so if you want to have more sexual partners you can get a CP instead of getting married

That would be no. Google is your friend

ExpletiveFairylighted · 31/12/2019 11:53

We had a civil wedding, minimal fuss, no giving away etc. Hasn't prevented 20 years of people changing my name to Ms DHSurname without me asking them to. CP might have headed that one off.

Ali86 · 31/12/2019 11:59

The main (legal) difference for me is that there is a far more robust and certain international regime for recognising marriages so that if an (opposite-sex) married couple are living or on holiday in another country they can be confident that they will be treated as married there. So many countries either don't have civil partnerships or recognise them as very different to marriage and there is no established international system for mutual recognition. For that reason I would choose marriage, especially if my partner was from a country that didn't recognise civil partnerships and/or we were likely to have periods of working abroad.
www.iflg.uk.com/blog/international-considerations-couples-civil-partnerships

ExpletiveFairylighted · 31/12/2019 12:00

That was meant to be Mrs DHSurname in my last post.

Ali86 · 31/12/2019 12:03

Isn't the main difference that a CP doesn't require sexual fidelity so if you want to have more sexual partners you can get a CP instead of getting married

Well marriage doesn't require sexual fidelity. There is nothing illegal about having an open marriage or living with someone else e.g. if you haven't got round to a divorce. What adultery does is give you a quick route to divorce if you want that but (a) as others have said you can use the 'unreasonable behaviour' route for adultery anyway and that applies to all marriages and civil partnerships and (b) divorce/dissolution law is about to be reformed anyway so that the reasons for the divorce/civil partnership dissolution will soon be irrelevant.

theunknownknown · 31/12/2019 12:05

To clear up some of the misunderstandings on here:
Yes, at present there is no scope to have mother's details on a marriage entry - but it is not the case that your absent/abusive father's details need to be required. It is something that is recorded for family history purposes but if you don't want it on your marriage certificate it won't be.
Marriages and CPs offer exactly the same rights. CPs are not marriage lite. Men who don't want to marry their partners will not want to CP with them either.
You dissolve a CP on the same grounds that you would dissolve a marriage with the exception of adultery (because of the legal definition of adultery - this may change when the gov finish deciding on whether no-fault divorce will be introduced).
The issue of marriage being bound in patriarchy mystifies me. So was voting and owning property. But we have advanced since then and not one woman claiming to not get married because of the patriarchy would similarly refuse to own property or vote Hmm
You do not have to change your name after marriage - there is no legal requirement to do so.
The words in the marriage ceremony are legally required but there are three versions one of which is very simple.
You don't have to be called Mrs if you don't want to.
You don't have to invite 9890 people to your ceremony (just two which is the same with a CP).
Marriage is universally recognised. Not sure a CP would be sufficient to live and work in some ME countries as may not be recognised in some parts of the world.
CPs are marriage by another name. They carry the same legal rights and responsibilities.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.