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?

TBH, I don't see the law changing anytime soon, hetro couples already have the right to a non religious ceremony to protect their legal standing, ok some might not like the old fashioned mantra of man and wife, but if all you want is a bit of paper, you can jump down the registry with little or no fuss if you choose.

That is what a cvp is to gay couples, it can be as fuss free or a huge great big wedding bash, most are wedding days.

So everyone has the same rights now, a CVP is the same as a marriage exactly, it's the same commitment you have to go through every thing to have a dissolution as you would do for a divorce. Which is what I think some people are getting confused about here, I maybe wrong.

A CVP is not a lesser form of marriage just to protect rights, it is the equivalent of marriage for gay couples and you can't just walk away if you change your mind, you still have to go through the whole divorce thing, so the comittment is exactly the same as marriage. It's done for love on the most part then security a 2nd.

So it makes no sense as it stands to bring it in for hetro couples, as they already have that option of that level of commitment ifyswim. Exactly as the coalition says, they are not going to change the law at huge time and expense as people don't like being called a wife, anytime soon.

It's true that everyone of the CVP I have been to has been a wedding, also all the couples are married, that's how we all refer to everyone be it married or cvp in our circles, just the way it is.

Great post, TheCoalitionNeedsYou. I agree completely.

EmmyLoulou you may see a CP as the same as a marriage, however as a gay woman I do not.
CP's have only be recognised for the past 4 years, whereas marriage has been legal for centuries. Some people are very prejudiced against them and they must be devoid of all religious references.
I am not allowed to call my Civil Partner my wife or spouse and this does rankle.
I don't think Hetrosexual people need CP's as you are right in that you can make your union as big or small as you like but as both my partner and I hold religious views we would prefer to have a marriage rather than a civil partnership. Is this so hard to understand? It is not always about the legal stance although this does make some things a lot easier.

it is mental that we don't all have the same. just mental. there are some great people trying to do something about it though - a straight couple who are going to bring a legal challenge against a refusal to allow them a civil partnership. i will try and find a link.

PeachMelba, just picking one thing from your post, you say you would like religious references in your union, but a civil marriage does not allow it either. Do you not agree that it's up to individual religons and denominations whether or not they marry same sex couples? I don't think that most religious wedding ceremonies are legally binding (poss. apart from C of E I think) and couples either sign the civil register after the service, or go to the registry office the day before (will gladly stand corrected on this though).

Peach - who says you can't call your partner your wife or spouse? Under what circumstances? I'm giving you permission right now to do it when talking to me.

The issue of your religion not accepting seems to me an issue with your religion really.

Peach I know what you mean, I am fully aware of there being differences as in you can't be a spouse etc and it's not allowed to be religious. My brother would have liked a religious ceremony too. The whole marriage has been legal for centuries is the huge issue, it's not something that can be re written over night, and a CVP was a compromise for the legalities.

But civil marriages can't be religious either, so it's not something the govt have the power to fix, it's the religious houses which won't happen I don't beelive any time soon.

My posts were trying to highlight that people seem to think that a CVP is some watered down, easy get out equivalent of marriage just with rights and no baggage that hetro couples should have the right to. When the legalities are the same with regards to the comittment.

Morgan - yes but you can get married in a church or a registry office if you are straight - not so if you are gay.

The Coalition - it is not people who are acceoting of CP's and gay people that are the problem - but on forms etc it is not allowed. No offence but I don't need, want or ask for anyone's permission to call my wife my wife when talking in an informal setting however when I am filling in formal documents believe me when I say that it does rankle when I have to put CP rather than wife.
And as far as religion goes, our chosen religion is extremely tolerant of gay people and CPs but since we had to have a CP with a registrar we could not incorporate any religious aspects to our ceremony. We did have a blessing at a later date however if we were straight then we could have been married in a church or similar.
Believe me when I say that for ME it is not the same as I have seen hetero marriage.

I've often thought that the legal side of things should be taken care of by the State - so couples can have a civil ceremony/fill in some paperwork and all be entitled to the same legal rights irrespective of the sex of their partner.

And then if it's important to that couple to have their relationship sanctified by a religous organisation they can have a church/mosque/etc ceremony as well.

So, same rights for all, but I'd like to see a separation between church and state generally in this area.

Emmy thanks for your response I feel like a CP is a compromise although I am very glad it happened - I honestly thought I would never get married!
My CP in my heart is certainly not a watered down version of a marriage and it saddens me to think that people would consider it so. But then at the same time I realise that to me it is not as valid in some ways as a marriage.
However as I said in my speech on my wedding day
'When I came out I had to come to terms with the fact that I would never get married. And yet now, here I am!
For me a CP is perhaps even more special than a traditional wedding - for the simple fact that I never thought I would get it - it is like the most fabulous present that you always wanted but you never dreamed you would get in a million billion years!'

As I read that I am gladdened that I have had a CP and am recognised as being my wife's partner. :)

Oops that was meant to be in my heart and to me

Sorry PeachMelba, I still don't really get it. Let me give you an example - if I got married in a Muslim, Catholic etc. ceremony but didn't take any steps to have the marriage recognised legally, the state would not consider me married. Legally, I would be cohabitating. So, if you wanted to walk up the aisle and say vows 'before God' etc., I would think that's really up to your religion, not the state. Oh - Are you objecting to the fact that I have the option to have the civil register there too (although I'm not sure that's true of every religion)?

But congrats on your CP, your speech is heart-warming

Peach - On what forms though. I don't believe there is any legislation on what categories I can put on a form to collect data for my purposes. There may be guidelines for government use for specific requirements and data integrity. But I don't believe there is legislation. So it's not a legal issue, it's an organisations being too slow to change issue.

What happens if you just put wife down anyway?

If getting married in church without a civil ceremony was an option for you, I'm guessing you are CofE - not an option for most religons.

I'm in favour of disestablishing the church, so in my view, straight people shouldn't have that option. That's the only legal route to get equality in this area.

The civil partnership is a civil wedding given another name so as not to offend the people who think marriage is a hetero thing. Hetero couples can have a quiet civil ceremony in a registry office, they can even choose the wording of their vows (although unfortunately I believe the words "husband" and "wife" have to be in there).

Homosexual couples can have a big expensive bash with a registrar officiating too. It's really just the name.

What happens if you just put 'Married'?

Even if it doesn't work, surely the company is the one to complain to?

Morgan - I am objecting to the fact that I do have to put CP down on forms instead of wife - yes there are forms for this.

Coalition - No I am not CofE I don't know what rules they have - I only know that the registrar said that we could not have any religious references. Of course if we were straight then we could choose either a civil wedding or a religious one. On a form if I put down wife then they would correct me I expect - I am not legally allowed to put down wife so I don't. The law states that I am not allowed to use 'wife' on any official documents - such as changing my name at the bank for example.

We used the standard text too LeninGrad - the CP ceremony text is really nice :) It is great to know we will both be on the birth certificate when our son is born :)

TheCoalitionNeedsYou I agree entirely with your post at the top of this page, yes, I too believe marriage is JUST a legal thing, but it is clear to me that no matter how much I believe this marriage is far, far more to other people.

A rebranding of calling a civil wedding a 'civil partnership' may actually be a good idea.

It would make it clear that the civil partnership was ONLY about legalities- not a bad thing where people now don't marry because they associate it with OTHER THINGS they don't wish to have.

So as a civil partneship is exactly the same as marriage (legally) and comes with all that baggage etc as people call it, it would be pointless making it for hetro couples as it is the same legality as marriage and is just as hard if not harder to get out of as only a few courts will deal with dissolutions as it's so new in law.

SO what people are suggesting is a bit of paper, that gives the rights of marriage without the commitment available for all is this right?

I can't see that happening for several reasons. Statistically although marriage failure rates are high, people who have comitted to marriage/cvp are less likely to split over time, as they have made that legally binding contract which can be an utter bitch to get out of not to mention expensive. That is also why the law is very complicated.

A lot of the clauses of divorce/dissolution make sense as it gives you time to think through your options rather than just being rash and splitting as you can with co-habiting.

Now if people wanted to be able to sign a bit of paper just to get legal rights, I can't see possibly how they could make this any simpler than a current dissolution/divorce especially where kids/assets/money/maintenace are concerned as things change over time, so it would need some form of mediation, courts etc. Up until recently even pre-nups were declared invalid in courts although taken into consideration.

So to get the same rights would probably still require a hell a lot of red tape and baggage just as it does now so why would they change something when this legal safeguard is already in place?

No, PeachMelba, I wasn't asking about filling in forms, I never questioned that part of your post. I'm asking about how you envisage same sex marriages incorporating religious element and/or taking place in church. That has nothing to do with the legalities of whether she is officially your wife. I'm talking about this part of what you said: "Morgan - yes but you can get married in a church or a registry office if you are straight - not so if you are gay." and in your previous post where you said you would have liked a religious element to your ceremony.