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 also think it would 'separate the wheat from the chaff' in a way because people would no longer be able to string each other along anymore regarding their TRUE feelings about relationship longevity.

A lot of people have their partners fob them off with excuses like 'we don't need a piece of paper to love one another' (which of course is true but not really the point in my view),

or 'too expensive'.

If it were clear that civil partnerships were just about tying up things legally, it would be nice and simple if someone's partner refused to sign up to it:
They're not doing it because they don't wish to give their partner certain protections in law.
Now I'm passing no moral judgement on this, but by refusing to civilly-partnership, they'd be doing this all the same.

How many people getting offended are gay themselves? Serious question as I know lots of gay people who have gone into a CVP, my brother included.

Now huge sweeping generalisation from my social circles, but they are not saddended or offended by the whole man and wife, marriage/cvp thing, people are seeing stuff that isn't there.

The legal defenition of a marriage and all that goes with it, marital law, divorce, family law, adultery etc, all refers to man and wife to re-write all the laws would take years, and years not to mention the cost and the fact that most marriages as they stand historically have a religious meaning.

Bringing civil partnership was the next thing they could do bar ripping up a huge part of UK law. It gives couples the same rights as married couples, protection for children of the relationship, something which needed urgent addressing, it's an issue that couldn't wait really.

The only real legal difference is it can't have a religious content, they can't divorce (it's dissolution) they can state unfaithfulness under unreasonable behaviour but they cannot dissolve under adultery. This is all because these laws are inshrined under the term marriage as it's legally know between a man and wife. Marital/family law is very complex as it is.

It's all the same stuff really, it's just slightly different in the technicalities because of the mess it would make to so many laws it would be a nightmare. I don't know one CVP couple who are saddened by this, infact the ones who wanted to commit for security welcomed the legal protection and it was a civil wedding in all but name, with a proper knees up

With addition to my post above, so basically a civil partnership is a wedding, it is marriage, exactly the same as a straight couple can do in a civil marriage.

It just has different names for the legal technicalitites to save ripping up the UK law books etc. Their rights are still the same and they still can and have to follow the same criterea as you do for divorce, it's just worded differently in law. Hence why most CVP are treated by family/friends/the couple as a "wedding".

mm, yes, emmyloulou, I remember speaking to a (gay) man who preferred civil partnerships to the idea of same sex marriage because, in his words, they were something same sex couples could make their own, rather than fitting into a heterosexual tradition. I have to say that I've always got the same impression from my gay friends as you have from yours, that they are happy with cvp. One or two of them I've heard speak in support of same-sex marriage in the U.S. (since it has been in the news recently, the law in California banning it and re-instating it every week), but then there's no cvp over there and there's the issue of people being granted a right and then having it taken away, so it's a bit of a different kettle of fish. I know not all gay people feel this way, but it's an interesting and valid viewpoint which I think is often overlooked.

emmy, why do you have to be gay to want civil partnerships for everyone? Marantha's provided a really good argument for it.

I didn't appreciate being lectured to about marriage being something between one man and one woman - because I don't like the implication that my relationship with my partner is mainly characterized by gender. I don't need to be gay to find that annoying.

In Belgium, which is predominantly a Catholic country, you can choose to REGISTER your relationship with the commune. This tells everyone on a legal basis that you are living as a couple/family unit and infers extra rights with regards to benefits/inheritance if the worst happens etc etc.

No ceremony involved but it something you have to actively do, so if you live together rather than choose to marry, you can still "protect" your legal rights to a greater extent.

Because littlereddragon, it's not that simple just to rip up all those laws that affect marriage, otherwise they would have done it.

The priority was to give the legal rights of marriage to gay couples so they had the same financial protection for themsleves and their children as they cannot legally get married like hetro couples.

To make it all as one would be highly, highly complex and would take years. So homosexual couples can now make thet legal commitment, which is very important and much needed in todays society. Their civil partnerships are a "lecture" about gender as they are for gay couples only. Same as marriage has always been for one man, one woman.

If people don't want to make that commitment, don't it's really simple. It's again people projecting their own issues under the guise of someone elses rights.

It is very extreme feminism,IMO being fought under gay rights. I have no issue with the terms of marriage because guess what it is one man, one woman Like many, many gay couples welcome the CVP.

emmy, sorry, but that's nothing to do with my point. I object to the current registry office set-up. I didn't say it was because I was crusading for gay rights, I said it was because I didn't enjoy being told my marriage was mainly defined by gender. I'm also unsure why objecting to the form of the ceremony has anything to do with rewriting laws?

That is the whole point of the op and WHY we have a CVP for homosexual couples as apposed to marriage.

All our laws, inluding the term marriage etc are deeply inshrined as a man/wife thing. It would take years to re-write laws.

A marriage is something that happens between a man and a woman, they can divorce and commit adultery.

Hmomsexual couples cannot do any of this as all these huge laws refer to a man and wife all the way through, hence why they couldn't just allow gay marriage in this country, it would take years to re-write all the laws etc, so it was a step forward to help give gay couples rights, and the oppertunity to show a commitment the same as marriage.

So subsequently the fact that CVP can be seen as something to tie up legalities is offensive, as it is in all purposes a marriage/wedding and most do it for love first, security second.

To be honest that's not at all how I read the OP.

The term marriage may be enshrined as a 'man/wife thing' - though I don't really see why it would be so hard to rewrite the law - but I don't think you're reading what's been written. For some people - me, anyway! - the issue of whether or not heterosexual couples should get to have civil partnerships isn't primarily about gay rights.

I have never understood why we do not have a system like PACS which operates for any type of couple in France.

YANBU. Heterosexual couples should be allowed civil partnerships and homosexual couples should be allowed to have a wedding and marry. I don't have a problem with churches saying they don't want to conduct a same sex wedding (I'm fairly sure the one nearest me would so i think it should be up to the individual vicar/church) but away from the church no distinction should be made.

I appreciate what people are saying about gay people being allowed to marry, but, frankly interesting as the subject is, this is not what THIS thread is about.
If I am honest as an atheist, I have no time for religion, however, I sort of understand why certain religions won't allow gay people to marry.
If the idea of marriage being between only a man and a woman is part of a particular religion, then it's obvious to me that that religion will NOT allow homosexuals to marry- it would be going against a fundamental part of the religion for them.

I've already (at least tried to) articulated WHY I feel civil partnerships for heterosexuals are a good idea; here's some more:

At the moment, there is only two choices available to heterosexual couples:
full-on marriage (with all the 'baggage' that goes with it) or cohabitation.

A third-way of civil-partnerships would be a whole new concept.
The call for cohabitee rights would diminish (something I disagree with owing to freedom of choice), because now there would be a whole new choice SOLELY concerned with legalities, nobody could say they didn't have the option anymore or that they didn't form a legal partnership owing to 'not needing piece of paper', 'too expensive', 'religious reasons' , 'dislike of heteronormative stuff' and so on.

Civil partnerships would cut to the chase.

I do see where you are coming from marantha, I dislike the way that marriage has come to be seen as an expensive way to 'declare your love', have a big party all about you, etc. But it seems to me that it's basically a problem of 'rebranding', if you like, because already a civil marriage is cheap and secular, and people who say they 'don't need a piece of paper' might feel the same way about a civil partnership. However, having read of people's experiences here, I do think there is room for marriage to change, e.g. perhaps losing the lecture on 'the purpose of marriage' in registry office weddings. I also wonder whether divorce could be made simpler, as I know one of the major things people have against marriage is the fear of losing out in a messy, acrimonious, expensive divorce. Maybe marriages could be 'dissolved' like cvp, though I don't know exactly how that works and I wouldn't want anyone to lose out on what they're entitled to under the guise of an 'easier' way to end the marriage and divide assets.... hard to get the balance right, I should think.

Didn't know that about California TheButterflyEffect, thanks.

Am I missing something? People do realise a civil partneship is not a cut to the chase thing don't they, it is exactly bar the legal expressions as of the laws mentioned earlier the same as marriage for gay couples.

Although they can't get divorced, (due to the legal definition) they can have a dissolution, it's still the same as divorce, eg they have to be CVP for a year, 5yr rule for abandonmnet, 2 year rule for everything else and they have to state reasosn for unreasonable behaviour all petitioned through the courts, following a rigid time scale.

They then have to divide assets, sort out the kids etc. It is exactly the same as going through a divorce. It's not a cut and shut thing, you can still have a very acrimonius and expensive dissolution as it's exactly the same.

So it's not as simple as saying oh hetro couples should have the right to a CVP, it is exactly the same, in law it gives the same rights as marriage and is exactly the same commitment, as legally it's just the same to get a disloution as it is to divorce, it's not an easy way out bit of paper to protect your assets, it is a huge commitment, they just don't use the term man/wife it's the only difference.

Do people get this or am I totally misreading the above posts, I maybe I am knackered.

OK as a gay woman in a civil partnership, believe me when I say I would rather be married than civilly partnered. My wife and I can only be recognised as 'civil partners' rather than wives or spouses, and civil partnerships cannot have any religious element in them by law although some registrars are more strict than others.
I am proud and pleased that our union is recognised and glad that our rights have been noticed. Personally I do not see the point of having Civil partnerships for heterosexual couples - you have the chouce to make it big or small, religious or non-religious and to spend as much or as little as you want!
I truly feel our wedding day was just that - a wedding day - but when people refer to civil partners as being 'married' in quotes - that brings back the fact that we do not have those rights.
I know that if gay Marriage was introduced my wife and I would go and have our civil partnership 'upgraded' - our words! :)

To throw something else into the mix here, what about an option for some kind of "civil partnership" for people who otherwise would not be allowed to "marry" ?

I am thinking, for example, of a brother and sister who live together, or two sisters.

Wasn't there a case not too long ago of two elderly sisters who had lived together for years and years but were having to face the fact that despite sharing everything their whole lives, they could not benefit from pension, insurance, tax benefits.

In theory, if I lived with my best friend, I could enter into a civil partnership with her if she was female, or a reg office marriage if he was male, and we would then have the same rights as married people. There is no rule that the relationship has to be sexual. But for siblings, that couldn't be the case.

Just coming at it from another angle.

Was going to post about PACS as well until I saw that Lilymaid had already done so...

OK thanks emmyloulou, I was hoping someone would know more about cvp dissolutions than me! I googled it very quickly but didn't see much detail. It just sounds less acrimonious somehow... don't mind me

Yes, anything which gives a couple a bit of legaility would be a good idea.

DP and I have been together 12 years and have two DDs. Never wanted to get married, hate the idea of a fussy wedding and don't see any need to have a bit of paper as such.

However, we live in a relatively provincial city where marriage is the norm. One of my friends recently married her partner of 10 plus years and said she felt it was the right thing to do after moving here from London.

For me and DP, it's more a case of not wanting to comply with tradition/the norm, but sometimes I do wonder how it affects us as a family unit - legally I mean.

Perhaps a Civil Partnership would give us the option to remain untraditional whilst still having that bit of paper!

There isn't a religous aspect to marriage.

Oh I see no it's just the same, harder infact as there are only a handful of courts that can deal with it as it's a new thing.

It's exactly like getting divorce really just a different name

It's very simple. If you want the legal rights pertaining to marriage, you need to enter into a marriage contract. (It's called a contract for a reason)

If you are marrying someone of the same gender this is legally called a marriage. If you are marrying someone of the same gender it is legally called a civil partnership.

For all intents and purposes they are the same thing. I refer to them both informally as marriage.

A marriage takes about 15 minutes and requires two witneses.

The law has done it's job - it doesn't need to concern it self with all the fripperies that people add on to this, or the hangups that people project on it.

The legal framework is there - just do what the fuck you want and stop expecting the law to modify to reflect whatever particular prejudices or hangups you have.