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?

As far as I am aware there is no such thing as 'common-law-wife/husband'. I happen to think this is good as nobody should be married by default.

I feel that as more and more people are choosing to cohabit in long-term relationships, marriage has sort of become 'optional' in this country.
More and more people are identifying (correctly IMO) that marriage is not necessary to love one another, the stigma of childbirth outside of wedlock has gone, but I do think that there is an element of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' by society's acceptance of long-term cohabitation.

The 'baby' being that marriage is fundamentally a legal thing.

Why not give people something which would make it absolutely clear i.e. a civil partnership that what they were undertaking would be a legal and financial tie only?

It would go some way of having 'fairness' for cohabitees, too.
Cohabitees would no longer be able to say that they were against forming a legal tie for religious and so-called sexist reasons, or because it's old-fashioned. It would be stressed that civil partnerships are ONLY concerned with legalities.
It would re-introduce idea of a legal tie without any 'baggage' of marriage and, I'm sorry, but if a cohabitee doesn't make use of a civil partnership for heterosexual couples then they've absolutely no right to complain that they're not seen as a couple on a legal level.

I like TottWriters plan

I can't see why there has to be any financial tie? Pre (or post) nuptial agreements should be legally binding IMO with the courts only involved (in the case of a split) if no pre-existing agreement is in place and there is a dispute.

There does not have to be a financial tie at all between couples- I am aware that a lot of people do not wish it and I am 100% in favour of people being able to cohabit without any state interference (apart from those who have children, I can see why the state has to intervene then but, then again this interference should only go so far as making sure that children are looked after properly).

SO what you are suggesting Marantha is a civil partneship for couples giving them the same rights, but with no "baggage".

That's what I asked earlier, what is this "baggage" you speak of, is it just ruling out the "stigmas" people may have, such as religion, old fashioned, sexist whatever.

As in that case, I think it will happen years and years from now, but right now, you can get legal protection if you want to legally commit. Pandering to peoples issues with being called a wife or whatever, is not really hugely important on the larger scale and a huge waste of money this country does not have right now.

Legal ties and finacial ties, will still come with huge baggage, even if you change the name and wording of a legal contract, most will still have to be thrashed out in court, peoples circumstances change, kids come along etc, so in that sense the "baggage" will probably be the same.

Most people are scared of marriage as if it goes belly up there are huge finacial implications when it comes down to it, that's the real sticker for most, so giving those rights away if you sign a bit of paper called x, won't change much for many people IMO.

'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.'

Sorry, emmylou, YES, you are missing something. No, it's not 'exactly' the same as marriage.

Well yes it is the legal rights are the same and the dissolution is the same as divorce, albeit some names have been changed as technicalities.

So yes it is the same, people seem do be under the impression that the CVP is a watered down form of marriage that is something you can just walk away from with lesser legal rights it's not.

I see what this thread boils down to now, people have more of an issue with the religious connotations, or being called wife, in a word tough.

I agree with you completely marantha

You posted on my thread in legal (I've changed my nickname because it was too long to keep typing) about marriage and property ownership where I was shocked to find out that even with legal arrangements in place were I to marry my partner these could, and probably would, just be ignored by the courts if we split.

emmy, I've said before, I'm not talking about the legal rights (it's an issue for some but not for me). I know I've got it very cushy, but I did find the registry office ceremony offensive and sexist. Why do you think you get to choose to say 'tough' about that, on a discussion thread?

Some of the changes that should be made would be incredibly simple: for a start, if they changed the official guideline that the woman is given the marriage certificate (on the basis that it's women who take care of paperwork, like unpaid secretaries), that would help. If the default option weren't to refer to the newly-married couple as 'Mr and Mrs' (so you have to opt out), that'd help too. Some of these things are very simple, but I think if they changed, attitudes would slowly change with them.

It's not about being called "wife" though is it? It's about the history of marriage as a way to buy a woman off her father to run your house and bear your children. This is one of the things to which I object.

If we are in an age of equality our partnership arrangements should reflect this.

Exactly waspie.

And to me it's things that seem little, but add up to making you feel like a second-class citizen. I mean, how difficult would it be to ask the couple to choose who makes vows first? My DH's mother tongue isn't English, and although he is bilingual, it did occur to me that I usually speak first - it felt really peculiar to have him saying everything first while I waited.

There is absolutely no logical, legal or practical reason why something like this shouldn't be up to the couple to choose - yet the symbolism is quite powerful, precisely because it reinforces the traditional patriarchial view of marriage.

The 'baggage' for me is all the cultural and social expectations around the idea of a wedding.

So if DP and I decided we wanted to sign a contract to tie up some legal loose ends around inheritance, tax etc, and we just went ahead and did it as we would any other legal or financial matter (like when we got our mortgage) - all hell would break loose when our families found out.

For some reason, because signing this particular bit of paper is called 'marriage', there will be all kinds of expectations. Our parents, siblings, cousins, friends, colleagues etc will all expect to be invited to watch us sign it (and say our brief statutory words). They'll expect me to wear a dress (which I hardly ever do), not just any dress but an expensive, impractical ballgown, and uncomfortable shoes, and get girly stuff done to my hair and face and nails and who knows what else, they'll expect expensive jewellery to be involved (I don't wear rings, ever, don't like them), for photographs to be taken of us, very bizarrely they'll expect me to change my surname that I've had for 30 years to a different one. They'll probably be expecting music and poetry of some sort, and maybe cut flowers. They'll expect us to host a big party and provide food and alcoholic drinks and play music, they might (horror) even expect us to dance, for some reason they may feel an obligation to buy us household appliances and crockery that we don't need or want.

Of course we don't absolutely have to do any of these things, but if we don't, I'll have to explain repeatedly why not, there'll be massive pressure to change our minds, so much that we might end up giving in one issue at a time just to stop the harassment, people will be offended if they're not invited etc.

These expectations are all totally alien and bizarre to me - I imagine it taking 5 minutes after work one day to say our statutory words in front of a couple of witnesses, don't care who they are, and sign our bit of paper, all done. But because it's called 'marriage', that will not be considered OK.

I think it would be decent to allow straight (sorry, but sick of typing 'heterosexual') couples to form civil partnerships, too.

Society does seem to expect some kind of a big do when a couple marry, not everybody can afford it (no idea if this is the case with posters here) so a couple live together saving up for a big wedding because they want to (perhaps rightly) please their families they are denying themselves legal protection for that period.
One of them dies in the interim and the state then forces the late partner to go through an expensive and time-consuming process of claiming against the deceased partner's estate as a dependent.

Why not give them an option that would free them from the huge expections of getting hitched that would at the same time give them legal protection?
I can't see that as a bad thing myself.

When we had our civil partnership everyone assumed it would be a big do - I don't think changing the law to make it include straight couples would change that!

Yeah ... tba, neither do I, peach. But I notice that those of my friends who have, or are planning, civil partnerships seem to be more able to play up the 'big party/declaration of love' angle, as opposed to the 'falling in with tradition'. What is a shame is that it's been harder for a mate of mine to convince everyone that her civil partnership is, for her and her wife, a religious union ... but that's another thread!

No, I agree maybe it wouldn't make a difference - the CP ceremony seems to have become a wedding by any other name, which is fair enough as I know many same-sex couples want to have a big proper wedding day.

But for me, I'd just like to be able to do the paperwork without all the associated fuss and nonsense, probably we'll just have to ignore the expectations and deal with the fallout, though DP is understandably reluctant to upset his family...

Big, expensive, weddings have only really been around since well after the end of the second world war. There's no real "tradition" in the meringue and morning suit with 300 of your nearest and dearest to guzzle champagne and eat sea bass type of wedding.

I understand about the expectation for gay couples to have a big do, but not sure if this would apply to straight couples.

People would expect a celebration of sorts for a marriage but if a straight couple were to form a civil partnership instead, perhaps people would just think, 'Oh well, they only want to sort out the legal details, perhaps they don't want to make a big day out of it' and understand the lack of fuss.

I think one aspect is that people want to show their support of a right that's only recently been granted. And some people do that by insisting that the civil ceremony be made to look as much like a trad. wedding as possible, or by vocally supporting a big, grand event that's a visual celebration of this new right.

I think that's why civil partnerships don't automatically lead to a more restrained way of doing it, but I still prefer them for the lack of sexism.

"Society does seem to expect some kind of a big do when a couple marry"

Well, work on the expectation of society, then. And I can think of plenty of people I know who had very small civil marriage ceremonies with only a couple of witnesses, and loads more who had pretty small civil marriage ceremonies with immediate family only and then going out for lunch. AFAIK none of them wound up being hounded by hordes of outraged potential guests. So I'd doubt your original "Society does seem to expect..." premise anyway.

Proper wills, both names on any financial documents, parental responsibility forms for any children born before 2003.

Easy peasy. No need for any ceremony.