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?

Marantha - Because marriage already is purely a legal thing. As I said, just because you SAY the words, you don't HAVE to MEAN them ;)

Actually, I'm going to back track a bit here. What would this mean for immigration status? What would be the knock on effect on civil partenerships?

Say you have marriage and civil partnership for straight couples. Does that mean marriage is only if you are 'in love' and CP if you just want to hitch your finances together?

Does that mean that (as immigration already check you are really 'in love' to avoid marriages of convenience) that a CP would not allow a partner residence?

Would that then rule out gay CP getting residence? Or would we need in 'in love' version for gay couples as well?

Coalition, the argument that you don't have to mean the words is just silly. The whole point - as they remind you - is that you're saying these words in the presence of witnesses, because you're making a promise and believe it to be true. As it stands, it's not 'purely legal'.

I thought the immigration law was the same for married people and civil partners?

I reckon that at the moment, the wedding ceremony requires you to go along with a particular idea of what marriage means - for example, you're required to accept that an important defining factor of your relationship, is gender. Objecting to that doesn't mean I love my DH any less, but I'd like there to be an option where we could get the legal recognition without marriage being defined in this way.

I still don't see why the law should be changed to cater to people's prejudices. I really understand that it's irritating for couples who just want to sign the papers and be done with it, but it's up to them to reclaim marriage from the wedding industry. It's their own free choice. I don't see why we should create another institution which is essentially marriage under a different name, just so Great Auntie Ethel might not be as upset about not being invited. If a person's family and friends have assumptions about what a wedding is, or what marriage is, it's not the state's place to step in accordingly. Times change - it was once fairly normal to get married with just your two witnesses, it may yet be again if or when big weddings fall out of fashion.

I do think that the legal and financial benefits of marriage should be widely publicised, although to be fair the govt. are already doing something with this campaign which focuses in a non-judgemental way on the different rights of married and cohabitating couples, and offers advice on how cohabitating couples can protect themselves.

I don't see why the law should be kept the same to cater to other people's prejudices.

Sorry LittleRedDragon, can you clarify what you mean?

Agree, Morgan.

Aunt Ethel does not even need to be told about the registry affair, so don't see what the fuss is about.

At the moment, if you have a civil ceremony, there are certain legal requirements, eg. you must listen to a little lecture about 'the purpose of marriage', in which gender is defined as one of the most important aspects of your relationship. You must use the terms 'husband' and 'wife'. According to our registry office (though someone has suggested they may have been wrong), the man has to speak first.

All of these things are based on old prejudices about men and women. They may seem unobjectionable or 'just traditional', but they are still based on prejudices, just as much as my own views (for example, that gender doesn't have a lot to do with how I love my DH) do.

Does that make sense?

Mm, OK, LRD, that makes sense. However, would that not be solved by modernising the wording of the ceremony? (& if the idea that marriage is between two people of opposite genders is objectionable, for me the logical conclusion would be to open up marriage for same-sex couples, rather than cvp for heterosexuals.) I suppose what I'm saying is that it seems less trouble for the marriage ceremony to learn a few things from cvp ceremonies, than to create a two-tier system.

The only part I don't really understand is the objection to the words 'husband' and 'wife' - they simply describe your legal standing, just as, say, in a rental agreement we use 'tenant' and 'landlord' etc. I would not have said that the words 'husband' and 'wife' were inherently based on old prejudice about men and women. Same-sex couples often use them too, with pride, two husbands or two wives.

But, of course, in social situations there is nothing to stop you saying 'partner' instead, or whatever your preferred word is.

Yes, I think a lot could be solved by changing the wording of the ceremony/losing the lecture - but then, it would be much more similar to the civil partnership ceremony, so one might as well get rid of registry office weddings and just use civil partnership. After all, there's nothing to stop you making a civil partnership as elaborate as you like.

I don't mind the words husband and wife, but someone else on the thread mentioned that they did, and that you can't choose not to use them. If I were being really picky, I suppose I could get irritated about what 'husband' means, but I don't, to be honest.

Maranatha, YANBU. We need an alternative to marriage. To me, it's not at all anything to do with wedding = big flamboyant ceremony, CP = small low-key affair. When CPs are eventually introduced for straight couples, as I am convinced they will be, I will be wearing something posh and spectacular and have the party to end all parties, inviting all my friends and family whose weddings I have happily attended over the years. I love going to weddings! But I have never, ever wanted one myself. I have never wanted to be a wife, or have a husband, and I don't see why I should hypocritically commit myself to an institution which I believe needs serious reform, just to reap the financial and legal benefits.

But my partner and I have been together for 12 years, have 3 children and we do want some form of legal recognition. I don't see what the problem is with extending CPs to straight couples ? can anyone explain? Why would it take years to change the law, as some posters have suggested?

Have a look at this website ? it explains very well why more and more straight couples are requesting legal recognition without the archaic baggage of marriage:

www.equalpartnership.org.uk/

"but then, it would be much more similar to the civil partnership ceremony, so one might as well get rid of registry office weddings and just use civil partnership."

Hmm, but what about couples who do want to call themselves married but just don't want an enormous fuss? Where else would be left to get married married - churches and licensed venues?

ScarlettCrossbones, I think the government will bring them (civil partnerships) in.

They'd be daft not to, frankly.

Isn't it now a case that over half the children born in this country are born outside of wedlock?
Which- to be really cynical- means that the govt has no control over what happens as regards maintenance for ex-partner if couple split. In short, cohabitees are not 'controlled' in same way as married people.

'Cohabiting rights' have been put forward, trouble is, nobody (including myself) wants them.

So my guess is that civil partnerships would be a suitable alternative for the state.

People have sussed that they don't need marriage to love one another so the govt can no longer coerce them into committing to financial legal rights via marriage, now a suitable alternative will be thought of.

"Isn't it now a case that over half the children born in this country are born outside of wedlock?
Which- to be really cynical- means that the govt has no control over what happens as regards maintenance for ex-partner if couple split. In short, cohabitees are not 'controlled' in same way as married people."

Well, there is the CSA etc. (think maybe they've changed the name recently?) to get child support from absent parents.

As for maintenance for the ex-partner herself (or himself), I'm not sure why the state should be bothered if people have freely chosen not to marry. Are you suggesting that the govt. gets something out of divorce and loses out when unmarried couples separate?

Yes, I think that the govt saves money somehow when a couple divorce as opposed to 'just' an unmarried couples separating. Don't exactly know how and prepared to be corrected if I am wrong.

I also have some agreement with Leningrad's post at top of page.
I know it is absolutely correct that gay people have now the opportunity to register their relationships, but would it not be the case that (apart from inheritance tax) all the legal rights they required could be made via a trip to a solicitor?

I mean, at least the state didn't treat gay people as 'appendages' of another person before the advent of civil partnerships.

Now gay people can lose out and be treated as if in a civil partnership even when they don't wish to be.
A lot to be said for not judged as an individual in your own right, I think.

I mean a lot to be said FOR being seen as an individual in your own right.

Marantha, I don't quite understand why you're so against cohabiting rights being brought in - and lots of people do want them. The cohabitation bill that was introduced a couple of years ago allowed people the benefit of opting out - so there was still freedom of choice, nothing would have been imposed on anybody who didn't want it. At the moment, 56% of people still believe in the common law wife myth so plenty of people are cohabiting without realising how unprotected they are legally in the event of their partner's death or departure. Some of these protections can be gained by drawing up wills and owning property jointly etc, but plenty of others can't.

Little Red Dragon - I recently had a civil wedding too - and many of the traditions annoyed me. One that you haven't mentioned and really irritated me was the fact that on the marriage certificate, I had to state my father's name and occupation and my mother (who brought me up on her own) didn't get a mention...

I think it is a bit silly to have:

Marriage for straight couples who want the trappings

CP for straight couples who don't want the baggage

Marriage for gay couples who want the
trappings

CP for gay couples who are happy to forgo the trappings

I am all for modernising the institution of marriage and merging marriage/CP/Gay/straight together. After all, we are talking about the same legal rights and obligations in all 4 cases.

I've got a better idea - why don't we stick with the current situation where anyone who wants them can have the same legal rights, and those who want to object to the wording of the fucking vows, or pretend that they can't have the kind of realtionship they want because of the weight of Henry the eights misdeeds on the institution can FTFO.

X X X

Roller - yes! I'd forgotten that, but now you mention it, DH was upset for the same reason as you (his mum brought him up). Just another really crap one.

Coalition, why are you so angry/dismissive about this? If the sexism doesn't bother you that's lovely, but it comes across as if you're really just objecting for the sake of seeing other people pissed off. I mean, I'm sure there's a better reason in there but I'm not getting it from your posts.

blueshoes, I think that list is exactly what we need. Choice!

Rollercoasteryears, Sorry, I'm all for civil partnerships for gay people/straight people and all for marriage for gay people/ straight people, but I am 100% cohabitee rights- if people want certain rights they have to sign up for them of their own free will.

I do not wish to live in a country where the state can deem a couple to be married/civil-partnered for the couple.
The state should stay the hell out of people's relationships in a legal sense unless the couple have invited it in via marriage/civil partnerships.