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?

Dont object to marriage its the expense and expectations and issues that come with that little bit of legal paper.Were together because we want to be together and shouldnt need societys blessing with that piece of paper to be the couple we want to be!I guess when your younger you want the dream wedding and all that goes with it. i just need a bit of acceptance that were a "couple" and a bit of security!Maybe Im just an aging rebel!But Im happy! :)

But if you call each other husband and wife and have the same last name, won't you be getting all the same "expectations and issues"? And there hardly needs to be any expense -- certainly compared to the up to £97.65 a week Widowed Parent?s Allowance.

I have no issue whatsoever with couples choosing not to marry -- just seems odd to do everything to look like a married couple short of actually being married as it looks as though you get all the disadvantages of being married and none of the benefits.

Rowwgfc72 Hi, I think committment to another is definitely a state of mind and wish you well on sorting things out to suit you, but think that marriage is an objective thing in that you've either been through the marriage procedure or you haven't.

Good luck with working out a system that works for you, though.

Row, I think legally if you are married there must be a more equal split if one partner is earning the money and the other looking after children/home. Sadly an agreement to split things evenly in the event of a breakup can go wrong, though I'm sure it won't with you as you sound very clued up.

Didnt know about that one !I think its more the fact that I dont see why I should have to get married to be taken seriously as a couple when what we do works well for us.But I will certainly look into what you said-although then we would only be getting married for possible financial gain.Maybe my specks are a little rose tinted ?

Peachmelba, it isn't just gay couples precluded from having their wedding legally formalised in Church. As a Catholic this was unavailable to me too. In fact, this rule excludes everyone from having what you are referring to apart from those marrying in a CofE Church.

Marantha, I think it's a bit OTT to say we should have CPs for hetrosexual couples just because their families and society expect a big fuss. There will only be a big fuss if you allow there to be. You cited the example of a couple putting it off whilst saving hard and in the meantime one dies. Well, why not do the legal bit then save for the big wedding? IMO, it's madness to suggest changing the law because couples want to avoid the pressure to have a big do.

However, the argument that CPs should be allowed to refer to themselves as spouce is a valid one. I can understand that husband/wife is bound up legally but surely the fact that spouce is not gender specific should mean that it can be used by both married couples and CPs?

spouse not spouce. And I did it twice! tsk!

I think broadening the remit of civil partnerships would remove the presumption of sex and children being involved.

For example, sometimes older people like to live in pairs for company and security, and manage their affairs jointly.

Your marriage can be legally formalised in a Catholic church, so long as one of the clergy is an authorised person. It's how my sister married, and my parents, and my grandparents...

YANBU - but I think a better option would be to scrap civil partnerships and allow both hetero & homosexual couples to marry in the same way.
I'm not sure introducing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples will make a difference to how much is spent on an expensive wedding.
My DH and I got married in the registry office and went out for lunch with the PIL afterwards but my sister and her wife who had a civil partnership decided to have a big wedding celebration.

It's not just about the cost of a wedding.
That's not the only reason why I think it's a good idea. In fact, it is probably the feeblest reason, I admit.

Fundamentally, it is about stripping away all the baggage about marriage that people are averse to e.g. the argument about not needing to marry to love one another; now while I certainly believe this to be absolutely right, a lot of couples are denying themselves financial and legal protection because of it because they do not realise that marriage is fundamentally a legal matter.

Why not take offer a system that has no presumptions of love, religion or sex and that just allows a couple to form a legal/financial tie that would legally be the equivalent of marriage?

Row, I wish I could be really positive. It's just that I lived with a guy for a while, had legally witnessed written agreement that he owed me money ... turns out it's not worth anything. He still owes me several grand, and there's no way for me to make him pay. If there had been a simple civil partnership agreement, I might have been better off now.

Frankly, I don't see what the state should have to do with partnerships at all.

But not all Catholic priests are legal registrars; in fact quite a few are not. Most RC weddings I have been to including my own, have had an officiant at the signing too. My point was that CofE priests/vicars are automatically legally qualified to do this job unlike those of other faiths.

And again, my point is why not just use the civil marriage ceremony as a way to ensure legal security? Who cares that it implies love? Most people using the system will love each other and those that don't, well there's no legal obligation to be in love is there?

Marantha, the thing is that exists and it is called marriage.

Well, yes -- my preferred model, as I said above, is for everyone to have to do a legal civil ceremony.

I think most parishes have a priest who's also a registrar -- it's just a case of whether he can arrange to be there. My sister was married by my brother, for example, but the parish priest came along so that he could do the registration.

myredcardigan what you are saying is semantics. When I say marry in a place of worship, I mean exactly that - walking into a church or syangogue etc and walking out as man and wife. Most couples sign the register there if they are having their ceremony in place of worship, don't they?

The point that I made earlier still stands - My wife and I could not have our ceremony in a place of worship, and we were fortunate that we were able to have our union blessed at a later date.

Haven't really read the whole thread but are there realistically a group of hetero couples with 'baggage' about marriage who would embrace a civil partnership (if it was available) as opposed to a registry wedding?

Outside of mn, I would think infinitesimal.

Peachmelba - no. Most religion's wedding's are not legally valid in this country. They have to have a civil ceremony as well.

The civil ceremony can be at the same time though -
'In some countries - notably the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Spain - both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and civil ceremony also serving as agent of the state to perform the civil ceremony. To avoid any implication that the state is "recognizing" a religious marriage (which is prohibited in some countries) - the "civil" ceremony is said to be taking place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If the civil element of the religious ceremony is omitted, the marriage is not recognized by government under the law.'

www.weddingguideuk.com/articles/legal/englandwales.asp

Ok it's not quite what I said. You can have a civil ceremony angle a religious one at the same time if the venue is licensed and you've got a someone qualified as a registrar.

And you may be getting the reform you want anyway :)
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7047572.ece

My partner is not Christian (and neither am I) but yes I am acutely aware of the possible way forward in the church. Fortunatly our religion are more open minded that most Christian churches so we have a much easier time of it.

I have been to plenty of weddings where they had the whole thing in a church, as well as other religion's weddings so I was getting confused!

Blueshoes - yes there are! I would much prefer to be able to turn up at the registry office, sign a piece of paper and for that to be it. No need to have a ceremony, or call myself someone's wife.

And I think this thread has turned out to be about 2 different issues - whether hetero couples should be allowed to have a CP is nothing to do with whether gay couples should be allowed to get married.

CP and marriage do have the same legal protections but they are not the same. A conscious decision was taken at the time CPs were introduced to have a new and different right called civil partnership, rather than to extend marriage to gay couples. This was a political decision. There was also thought to be a risk that the legislation would be opposed by the religious lobby and wouldn't get through the House of Lords.

It's not the case that it would have been too difficult and time-consuming to go through all the legislation and change all the references to man and wife. This was done anyway, to amend references to marriage to include civil partnership where necessary. Parliamentary Counsel could easily have amended all the other references if there had been the political will to do so, but there wasn't.

So marantha, YANBU!

rainbow: "I would much prefer to be able to turn up at the registry office, sign a piece of paper and for that to be it. No need to have a ceremony, or call myself someone's wife."

What's stopping you from having a registry wedding then? Just keep it dead simple, not change your name, call yourself a wife or even tell anyone.