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?

Blueshoes - according to Oxford registry office, there are 'quite a lot of you' [people getting married] who object to aspects of the registry office ceremony. I'm not sure if that answers your question, but it suggests that there's something amiss.

Did the Oxford register office do a study? Surely 'those of you' that object to aspects of the registry office ceremony do not even darken their door.

No - it just happened to be where I was. I queried some aspects of the ceremony and they said cheerful that a lot of people objected to the same things. It is purely anecdotal, that's why I qualified the point by saying it was just according to my local registry office!

*cheerfully.

I objected in the usual fashion in my marriage vows about obeying. Does not mean I am against marriage.

The fact that they still went ahead with the ceremony suggests they are not OP's target market.

YABU - civil ceremonies can be as low-key as you want...it's either a public commitment or it's not.

Barmy - that's the problem. Why should you have to have a public commitment just to get the legalities sorted? Why can't you just sign a form?

Blueshoes - a registry wedding is just that, a wedding, you have to have a ceremony using a particular form of words. Whereas for a CP you can just sign a form. I don't want a ceremony, and I don't want someone to "take me as their wife". So yes, I'd like a CP.

For a civil ceremony, you can write your own vows, I thought. So make it as impersonal as you like. You don't have to use the words 'husband' or 'wife'. 'Partner' or whatever is least offensive will do fine.

YABU. civil partnerships for heterosexuals is called marriage. Homosexuals ought to be allowed to get married.

RainbowRainbow - some contracts (mortgages etc) require witnessing...marriage/civil partnership is the same.

I think 3rd party presence is necessary to prevent/mitigate involuntary partnerships etc.

A civil marrigae can be as low-key as you want...you can use strangers off the street if need be!

FWIW, I would be pretty underwhelmed to have such a non-commitment from you. Why bother?

Luckily I don't think I'm your type, Barmy.

And when I signed my mortgage papers/will etc, that what I did, signed them. I didn't have to read it out loud.

Blueshoes - you do need to use the words husband and wife in the civil ceremony, for the legally binding bit.

Like previous posters have said, we should have something like the PACS.

Isn't this all about the fact that weddings have got really over the top and everyone expects they'll have to provide a really pricey bash etc? Lots of couples are put off by all that. They want all the rights that marriage confers but not the obligation of the OTT ceremony and after-do. I say what's wrong with getting hitched in your best dress and having a few mates round to the pub afterwards? People are only demanding civil partnership contracts because they can't stand the thought of the whole hullaballoo of a wedding. Someone should start a fashion for low key ceremonies (with whatever wording you want) followed by ham sandwiches. Very austerity Britain ...

Gottodecision - all the hullaballo is nothing to do with the law. You can do exactly what you said now, it's called getting married. It doesn't require any new laws.

We did the register office last week- it took ten minutes, if that. All I had to say out load was my name and "I will" (at least that is all I remember!) then me, DH and our two witnesses signed a form. I didn't change my name (I had already done it via a free legal declaration, years ago) and it cost just over £100 in total. We didn't have music or rings, and the only photos were on our phones.

We did the dressy up family bit a couple of days later, but that isn't the point- the register office bit was very simple. It wasn't even our nearest office- we had to go to our nearest one a few weeks before for a bizarre green card style interview and to show our documents, and that was it.

Oh, and the "obey" issue didn't even come up. We had a choice of traditional, modern or short ceremony. We went for short. :D

I agree it's the societal/family expectations that need to change, more than the law. But they do need to change, even here we get comments like this:

"FWIW, I would be pretty underwhelmed to have such a non-commitment from you. Why bother?"

So if I've been with my partner for 10 years, we have a mortgage together, children, in-laws who already consider both of us part of their respective families, we fully intend to stay together and care for each other for as long as we live - and we just want to have a simple no-fuss contract signing to simplify some legal matters - our whole relationship is somehow a 'non-committment' that we shouldn't bother with, just because I don't want to dress up as a giant meringue?

See what I mean about 'baggage'

You don't have to dress in any meringue though

Do you actually know what you are talking about? Because I had a low key wedding last week, and there was no fuss. We wore normal clothes, signed a form, said a couple of words so she could tell we knew what we were signing, and bobs your uncle (or your husband).

I like to think I know what I'm talking about - I understand that the legal requirements are very minimal, what I'm talking about is the expectations that certain things will be done, otherwise people consider it a 'non-committment', as in the comment above.

That's why I said I'd like to see a change in expectations rather than a change in the law (legally it's fine as it is).

We fully intend to do more or less what you did, it's just a shame that people see that as reason to make cruel comments about the level of our committment and (in the case of family) take offence at not being invited and entertained in the way they expect when they hear the word 'wedding'.

It's not "just because you don't want to dress up as a giant meringue", though, is it? It's "just because you don't want to say 'I am' and 'I will' out loud in front of two witnesses (who could be complete strangers) rather than just signing a form".

marantha, YANBU.

I dislike the historical connotations of marriage (ownership of one person by another), and was glad we were able to get a CP. I think straights should be afforded the same right. It may only be a minority taking it up (now), but it stops the current setup where straights and gays who get "married" in a civil ceremony are automatically the same but different.

ProfLayton - no I'd be fine with that actually, it's just all the fuss and family involvement I don't want. It's just horrible to have to choose between a stressful and humiliating day for me, and offending family and having people think we don't really love each other and aren't properly committed.

Even aside from the ceremony itself, I've had people say I'm being disrespectful to my DP by not wanting to wear a ring (I don't care for jewellery in general) or rejecting him and snubbing his family by not wanting to change my name, and imply that I intend to have affairs etc.

Expectations and baggage.

I think everyone need to remember that just because you SAY the words, you don't HAVE to MEAN them ;)

I'm not sure that having a civil partnership process for hetrosexuals actually WOULD ditch much of the baggage and family expectation that worries people anyway. I suspect that people would (rightly) see it as exactly the same thing and STILL expect a party and dressing up and all that shit.

I understand 100% the argument that straight couples can ALREADY form civil partnerships (marrying in a register office). To someone like myself who sees marriage as PURELY a legal affair, this is something that I wholeheartedly agree with, but not the point.

Try suggesting on this site that marriage is JUST a legal matter, you'll get 'told off' for it by those who are married.

Try suggesting that those who are committed in the love sense yet have made little to protect themselves in a legal and financial sense, that they perhaps should take steps to remedy the situation and you will get replies that they 'don't need to, we're committed'.
Totally ignoring, of course, that the state has no crystal ball and cannot automatically know if they wish to be committed to on another.
Let alone the illiberality of the state deeming cohabitees to be committed for them

So why not have a system for such people that does away with any 'assumptions' about their committment levels and is PURELY a legal thing?