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?

... unless you want your spouse/civil partner to be exempt from paying inheritance tax on what you leave them (or are there ways round this?).

... or you would like to receive Widowed Parent's Benefit if the other parent dies (or would like them to receive it if you die) ...

I'm not sure about this, Professor, so bear with me while I think about it - but isn't it possible that society's expectations (which, yes, we can ignore) are somehow bound to the way the marriage ceremony currently works?

I know it's possible to have a small, unfussy registry office wedding. My brother is getting married in January with just immediate family present, it's what he wants and he's not heard a peep of discontent from anyone he (or we, his immediate family) give a toss about.

However, I think the way the wedding ceremony is done does foster some expectations as to what marriage is about. If you think about the wording, it clearly isn't a business agreement, or a legal statement, and it still clings to the traditional idea that the man is the primary partner and the woman is his helpmeet. The very fact that this is a 'ceremony' implies that it is to be steeped in tradition and ritual, rather than legality and/or emotion.

I don't have much sympathy for people who say they 'had' to have whatever twiddles at their wedding, or who say they didn't want to upset their guests, because it is pretty poor if you're too weak to disagree with people on these issues. But, accepting that doesn't mean I can't hope social attitudes to weddings/marriage won't change.

Sorry, not read the whole thread yet but as far as I know they can can't they...

I remember when Civil Partnerships were first mentioned hearing on the radio that they were not just for gay couples.

The example that they cited was, for example, 2 elderly women who had lived together as friends for years - they could become civil partners so that they had "spouse rights" in wills etc (I know a few elderly women like that, completely non sexual relationships, more like sisters) and the concpet of legal civil parnterships allowed for that.

So, in that case surely civil partnerships can be used to solomise a "friend" relationship - I don't know if it would matter that they were of a different gender. So as far as I'm aware the whole idea of a civil partnership as a legal status diod not require a romantic, sexual, or exclusive relationship - it could solomise friendships too.

I'm with the aint broke don't fix it group.

Civil marriage exists for heterosexual couples who don't wish to make a fuss, if to you as a couple this legally binding document is just a contract then why because it contains the word 'marriage' do you have to make a big deal out of it. You wouldn't bring you family and friends to the solicitors when you buy a house, make a will, etc so treat it in the same vein. If you're concerned about the fall out from family having done it, simples don't tell them!!

I do agree with some of comments on the wording of civil weddings and perhaps some review of this would be good.

However i find some of the comments on this thread about civil partnerships quiet degrading of the union. I feel it is equivalent to marriage and all that that involves, by making it a lesser 'partnership' for heterosexual couples you are creating a 2 tier system and degrading what has been hard fought for same sex couples.

As Shakespeare put it
'"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

I don't see that the wording does any of that, though. We had

"I declare that I know of no legal reason
why I, [full name], may not be joined
in marriage to [partner's full name]."

Replying "I am" to the question
'Are you, [full name], free lawfully
to marry [partner's full name]?'.

and then
"I, [full name], take you, [partner's full name], to be my wedded wife [or husband]."

So, yes, I said "husband" and DH said "wife" but other than that I don't see that there was any primary partner / helpmeet stuff.

Anything else is twiddles.

Arse. Over-use of cut-and-paste there. We just had

"I declare that I know of no legal reason why I, [full name], may not be joined in marriage to [partner's full name]."

and then

"I, [full name], take you, [partner's full name], to be my wedded wife [or husband]."

That was pretty much all that was required.

LittleRedDragon - A marriage is essentially, entirely and exclusivly a legal contract.

The silly sops to conservative tradition that remain in the wording of the ceremony are just remnnants.

Prof, the man has to say it first. They won't do it the other way around. They have to tell you about 'the purpose of marriage'. They are instructed to give the wedding certificate to the woman (as she's likely to take care of paperwork). They are instructed to offer to announce the couple as 'Mr and Mrs X', though you can opt out. The woman must be reminded to fill in the marriage certificate in her 'maiden name'. The woman is told she is entitled to change her name now, but the man is reminded that, if he wants to change his, he must do it by deed poll.

To me, that cumulatively feels pretty sexist and unpleasant. It wasn't me and DH at all, and we were really surprised that when we politely asked if we could change it around, the answer was no. They won't do vows in the other order, for example. The man has to go first.

They also can't cut the bit about marriage being defined as something 'between one man and one woman', which annoys me, as I don't think gender is anywhere near an important aspect of mine and DH's relationship.

Katz, er ... that Shakespeare quotation is a bit of a pyrrhic victory, isn't it?! Sure, names don't matter ... but when half the cast are dead, I guess they feel as if they matter a little bit!

The point is, yes, intrinsically, there is nothing better about the term 'civil partnership' than there is about the term 'marriage'. But the ideas and forms of words that are still associated with the wedding ceremony are potentially damaging.

DH did speak first, although I don't remember anything being said about that (hadn't noticed that it was just in one order). There's nothing in the Marriage Act to say that the man has to speak first, so your registrar/area was probably being pointlessly jobsworth there (we've printed the forms this way now, and we're not changing them...).

I think they may have had to say the "one man, one woman, voluntarily entered into" bit, but we got to write the rest of the introduction (and marriage is legally one man and one woman even though I'd prefer it not to be). They just asked in our pre-wedding chat whether we were changing names and once we'd said no presumably behind the scenes ticked the "don't mention 'maiden name'", "don't introduce as Mr and Mrs", and "don't give lecture on how to change names" boxes -- we were never asked about any of those specifically, anyway.

LittleRedDragon - I guess the answer is that you have to tolerate this very small indignity as we all suffer all kinds of indignities every day, if you want to get the legal rights etc. of marriage.

You don't need a deed poll to change your name, it just makes things easier. You can call yourself whatever you want as long as you aren't misrepresenting your identity.

Bathsheba, I think you're thinking of the French PACS system.

Prof, we did question it and they said the man has to speak first. They might have been lying - but they seemed pretty sure it was a legal requirement.

It does sound from the rest of what you say that ours were jobsworths - but the consistently told us things were required by law/recommended policy and we couldn't change them. If nothing else, surely there's a good case for educating registrars?!

Coalition - yes, it's a small indignity. I do know. Mind you, several of my friends are gay and they very much wanted me to protest against this small indignity, so I guess there's no win-win situation.

I think it's really sad when gay rights are set in opposition to feminism, and it seems to be happening here, rather needlessly imo.

I know about the law with name changes, btw (and thanks! I only worked it all out recently so it could have been very useful). But my point is, why should women get this lecture as an automatic part of getting married. Why should the assumption be that I will change my name?

SOMEONE has to go first, as we are much better suited to serial as opposed to parallel speech, so to ascribe a status message to the ordering seems a slight stretch.

Obviously someone has to go first, but why does it always have to be the man? It seems very odd to me to have that requirement.

The Marriage Act just says "each of the persons contracting the marriage shall, in some part of the ceremony and in the presence of the witnesses and the registrar or authorised person, make the following declaration..." -- absolutely no mention of an order.

It's a terrible argument to say someone has to go first. It is in no way difficult to ask people who'd like to go first, and it's the way it's done with everything else from opening a bank account to sorting out a mortgage.

The point is, it reinforces the traditional view that women come second. In our case, it also felt very odd - DP comes to English slowly, and would have preferred to repeat it after me, once he'd heard it over twice.

Prof, I wish I'd known that before. They were absolutely insistent that it had to be done in that order.

Hi be nice please, Im new here!My partner and I have been together five years.We have the mortgage,the kid , the car ,the dog.We,ve made wills to cover the legal stuff and made arrangements for DD in case of our deaths.We have no intention of getting married and went somwhere nice this summer to swap rings.We made a commitment to each other.He calls me the wife, he'll get a husband card for our anniversary.Its whatever your happy with yourselves I reckon.I did change my name by deed poll though so all three of us have the same surname.Maybe marriage is just a state of mind ?!

Hi Row, nice to have you here.

But - what happens if one of you falls out of love and changes your will? The other one will still, I assume, not have the rights of a married couple. Fair enough if that doesn't matter to you (you sound so secure, it presumably doesn't), but not so much fun if you're someone who's stayed with a flaky partner who 'doesn't believe in all the fuss of marriage', and then been dumped. It happens a lot.

I'm curious why you decided not to get married, it seems like you've taken steps to get the equivalent legal rights, and you've even changed your name and exchanged rings, and refer to each other as husband and wife.

Isn't marriage just a 'package' for couples who want to do exactly what you and your partner have done, rather than you having to take care of all the separate bits individually? Not criticising your choice, just curious why you decided to do it that way.

I would like to think we could be grown up about it-split everything fairly and sort out DD arrangements.I was married before and we managed an amicable 50/50 split(no kids though)and we still speak.I would hope Ive picked a guy on my wavelength!Cant see how it would be different legalwise not married(unless im missing something )!

What is it about marriage that you object to, out of interest, Row?

You have the rings. You have the "husband/wife" thing. You have the change of name. You have all the trappings that I've seen people cite as reasons for not getting married. In fact, all you seem not to have is the extra financial protection of being married (in case of inheritance tax or the death of one of you).