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?

I mean I am 100% against cohabitee rights.

And as I said earlier, if civil partnerships were brought in there would be no excuse for NOT signing up to an agreement that was solely concerned with legal rights. None at all.

LittleRedDragon - Because it's all so FUCKING trivial. A lot of blood sweat and tears went into getting CP's for gay people. That battle was won. Everyone now has the same legal rights.

All the stuff about the 'baggage' of marriage or the perceived inequalities is in people's heads. They need to grip up.

Maybe it seems trivial to you because you're incapable of grasping subtleties, then.

It is a bunch of crap to pretend this debate in some way lowers the importance of civil partnerships, or that one cannot dislike both homophobia and sexism.

LittleRedDragon, I don't believe this thread lowers the importance of civil partnerships, either.

I am glad that someone has mentioned the cohabitee rights issue. In part this is one of the reasons I would like to see civil partnerships brought in for straight people.

Too many people nowadays don't marry as they've got it all tied up with other things like love and committment, and, yes, they don't need a piece of paper to love one another, but the point of marriage is that it provides legal/financial ties.

If a 'third way' were brought about that made it clear that cohabitees didn't need official sanction of the state to love one another but did need it to provide legal rights, I think it would do away with common-law-spouse calls for 'rights'.

LittleRedDragon - What can you not do now that effects how you live your life or how you distribute your assets?

Because it seems to me that you want the law rewritten to remove the several seconds(ok a minute, maybe two if everyone talks really slowly) involved in 'union of man and woman' stuff and the man speaking before the woman (maybe).

Really, is it worth fighting with social and religous conservatives over such a small issue?

I've certainly sat through much longer religous ceremonies just out of politness, not even to get anything out of it in the end.

marantha: "I know it is absolutely correct that gay people have now the opportunity to register their relationships, but would it not be the case that (apart from inheritance tax) all the legal rights they required could be made via a trip to a solicitor?"

No. Both parents in a CP can now be named on the birth certificate of their new baby, but only if they're in a CP. This gives both partners equal parental rights/responsibilities without having to jump through the hoops required for adoption.

I think what annoys me is the unwillingness to compromise. There are still people who think that marriage is special/about god/some other bollocks. It is now completly legally divorced from that. There is a vestige of it left as a fig leaf to spare their blushes.

WE WON.

We can now do exactly what we like. Do we need to carry on proving how wrong they were?

I see your point Coalition (and actually, I'm one of those who think marriage is about God, sorry).

But for me, it's a battle worth fighting, because it's just one of the many times when it's impressed on me that the world sees me and DH in a very particular way.

No, it doesn't affect the way I distribute my assets, but it does affect the way I live my life. My mum will never been down on my marriage records - my dad always will. It's part and parcel of the same attitude that tells me it's not really a problem if someone cheats me when I get my car MOT done - because, after all, I could just let DH do it and it would be simpler. And again, I shouldn't get cross about being catcalled in the street - I should just wear a long skirt and high-necked shapeless top, and then it'd be fine.

They're all related parts of the same attitude, don't you see? And it's an attitude that ultimately doesn't do any favours to (among others) gay couples, either, because the same people who assume DH and I must have roles in our relationship defined by our gender, also assume gay couples must have someone who 'acts as the man' or 'plays the woman'.

"My mum will never been down on my marriage records - my dad always will."?

Are there some typos in there?

have. Yes, thanks.

My mum will never have been down on my marriage records - my dad always will.

Ah - ok this is what's on the certificate? I'm not sure I ever looked at mine...

That's the thing though - those other issues you mention seem much more worth getting worked up about.

Those actually affect your day to day life.

Changing that attitude is what we should all strive towards - but the contribution that changing the marriage ceremony, or what goes on the form, makes to that is pretty much the square root of fuck all.

Yes, but where do you draw the line about what's worth getting worked up about?

The problem is that if you draw an arbitrary line and say, 'well, if it's less important than this, I won't worry as it's not real sexism', you suggest that sexism is sort of ok if it's low-level. And I think that's a bit like having a garden of weeds and only bothering to kill off the ones over a certain height - the result is obvious.

Well, we're not yet at a point of needing to draw a line. You go after the ones with the biggest cost/benefit ration first. This seems pretty far down the list.

Eh? Just just drew a line right there, surely. You're saying ignore the small things and look at the big ones - which is drawing a line.

I think it's better to challenge it when you see it, whether it's a big issue or a small one.

YANBU.

Haven't read the whole thread but I think you should be able to have them for any relationship - sexual or otherwise - with your sister, for instance. I think we should be free as individuals to appoint a trusted next of kin/ No. 1 buddy with legal rights and mutual responsibilities, without anyone making nosy assumptions about exchange of bodily fluids.

(disclaimer: I have only just thought of this so I don't know if I think this when I get into this in depth)

None of this should be assumed because people live at the same address.
none of this should be denied because they don't "match" sexually.

Marriage is a loaded institution - loaded with "romance", sex, weird "the one" teleology, fetishistic fanatical consumerism, quasi-prostitution - so it doesn't work. Better to start again than spend ages peeling good potatoes to add to the poisonously over-salted soup - the soup will never be palatable and you're wasting your time and spuds

Marriage is a loaded institution - loaded with "romance", sex, weird "the one" teleology, fetishistic fanatical consumerism, quasi-prostitution - so it doesn't work. Better to start again than spend ages peeling good potatoes to add to the poisonously over-salted soup - the soup will never be palatable and you're wasting your time and spuds'

Ta for coming over.

vezzie Like your turn of phrase. I think something like this exists in other countries (someone mentioned PACS agreements from France) why not here I don't know.

Perhaps it's the government. The government are so screwed up about marriage- there's the tories and their 'only married people can be in committed relationships' stupidity and Labour who come out with daft stuff that marriage doesn't matter.

Both annoy me. The tories because it's just nonsense and labour because they bloody well know that there IS a legal difference between marriage and cohabitation.

I wish one of the parties would come out with something sensible like: 'Yes we know that people in long-term relationships can be devoted to one another, but legally they are not as same as married people'.

It won't happen.