to think that civil partnerships for heterosexuals are a good idea?

[marantha]

There seems to be so much fuss about marriage/marrying these days that I cannot help but think that allowing heterosexual couples to form civil partnerships like homosexual people would actually be a good idea.

I know some people would already say that there would be no legal difference between couples marrying in a register office at the moment and those straight couples forming civil partnerships- and there would not be any legal difference.

But it would take away the pressure to have expensive weddings (who wants to see two people sign a form?), take the religious aspect out of marrying and allow those who are religious whose previous spouses have left them or died the chance to form another legally-binding relationship without worrying what their religion thinks.

It would debunk the 'don't need piece of paper to love someone' argument because it would NOT be about love - it would JUST be a legal affair.

It would also take away any 'stigma' (not that I PERSONALLY see it as a stigma) of being someone's husband or wife.

AIBU to think that this might actually be a good idea?

YANBU

I don't understand the difference between a regular registry office wedding and a civil partnership, from a heterosexual point of view

YABU. Homosexuals couples should be permitted to marry in Registry Office just as hetero couples. In my mind, when they enter a civil partnership, they are married in every way I am.

What's needed is for more people to give a two-fingered salute to expensive weddings if that is not what they want and if others don't like it then stuff 'em.

I've thought for years these would be a good idea.

It takes away any of the loaded meaning that 'marriage' has (morals/religion/family obligation/"we are a unit" etc) and makes it easy to do the legally necessary stuff.
I wish they'd introduced for everyone and not only homosexual people, but I can see that it's another bit of bureaucracy that needs money and isn't vital.

YANBU, I've often thought the same thing. Though plenty of civil partnerships do involve an elaborate ceremony and big expensive reception, and are pretty much the same as a wedding, so it might not necessarily remove that expectation.

And is that the case? Civil partnerships are the same thing as registry office weddings, they just can't use the word "wedding" or "married"?

So what would be the difference between that and going down to the registry office in jeans with two witnesses? And there is absolutely no religious aspect to that kind of wedding as any remotely religious readings/songs are banned in registry offices.

Besides, plenty of gay couples do make a big deal out of their civil partnerships and see it as a wedding with all the trimmings rather than just a form to be signed.

I actually think it would be better to promote the legal benefits of marriage, because I think there's a lot of confusion and ignorance around it and a lot of people cohabit and don't realise what rights they are lacking. (Usually one or both of the partners has a horror of "weddings" (quite understandably) and doesn't really realise they could just pay about £100 total down the registry office, less than a proper will).)

I don't think there should be two different legal names for two things which are actually the same in law. It just gives people room to make distinctions.

I think same sex couples should have been permitted to have civil weddings, to give them proper equality, rather than creating a different legal term for their relationships.

Allowing straight couples to have a civil partnership removes the only distinction there is between a civil wedding and a civil partnership ceremony, making it pointless.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that such a thing already exists, and if there is 'baggage' around it then the thing to do is try and get rid of the baggage through information, rather than starting up an almost identical service.

Hetrosexual couples can go to the registry office and just sign a bit of paper with just two witnesses. A marriage doesn't have to involve a big wedding.

Civil paternerships are often followed by lavish receptions!

I'm fine with the church saying they can't do same-sex couplings, but away from the church there should be EQUALITY.

Letting non-believing straight couples to marry but not gay couples (who might be christians) is ridiculous.

I agree, Stewies.

As someone who went down the register office on a Tuesday and got married, and told people afterwards, I can assure you it is hard to remove the baggage! We managed to offend DH's brother, we delighted his granny, I annoyed his mother and my grandmother by not changing my name like a good wifey, we still got wedding presents (we turned a profit! It was mortifying, though lovely).
But yes there is the point about having two ways of doing the same thing.

YABU. Gay couples should be allowed to marry. All couples should have the choice of the kind of wedding they prefer.

A registry office do still comes with some inescapable 'baggage'. They're required by law to tell you what the 'purpose of marriage' is all about, which I found incredibly patronizing and crap. I think it'd be better if you could just go in, declare you were there of your own free will and understood, and sign a document.

It annoys me, too, that a registry office wedding is enough to allow a woman to use her husband's name, whereas he would have to get a deed poll to change his - and they tell you this.

Mind you, of course homosexual couples should be able to get married however they choose, too. It'd just be nice to have a more businesslike, less paternalistic way of doing it.

I understand the argument of 'why bother, heterosexuals effectively have civil partnerships when they get married in a register office'.

I personally think that marriage is just a legal thing (not religious, do not see how being married affects a person's love for another), but it is clear to me that others do not see it like that.

To other people marriage is loaded with OTHER connotations other than just the legal, thought it might be useful to have something that would provide the same legal rights as marriage without all the baggage surrounding it (marriage).

I would rather all homosexuals were allowed to marry rather than civil partner.

How would a civil partnership differ from a marriage legally? Can't you just choose to get married with minimal fuss if that's what you want?

I do think whatever a straight couple are entitled to do, a gay couple should also have that entitlement, whether you call it marriage or civil partnership.

I think that everyone should be able to have a civil wedding and then if you also want to have a blessing/wedding service etc then you can.

From what I rememeber and what my bro told me the differences are...

In a cvp you don't have to speak the words and it's all to do with the legalitites of it.

You can't "divorce" from a cv, and you can't site adultery. It's all to do with the defining laws going back 100's of years that would need to be rewritten etc as they refer to man and wife. It's something along those lines.

But basically they have the same legal rights as married couples it just saved the huge expense and time of re-writing the law, but gave people more rights asap, a good thing.

Hetro couples can have the same experience, they don't have to have a huge do, but most Cvp ceremonies are a huge deal, been to a few now.

is it the case that in the UK both partners have to be of the same sex to have a civil partnership? I'm from NZ, and there 'civil unions' are for heter or homosexual couples. don't really understand why they wouldn't be?!

whiteflame, annoyingly, even if you have a civil ceremony in the UK, the registrar is legally required to state that 'marriage is between one man and one woman'.

wow, ok i didn't realise that LittleRedDragon.

the way the civil union works in NZ is it's the legal equivalent of a wedding, with the religious components removed. it gives the couple all the legal rights of a marriage - next of kin etc.