to think Ed Milliband should have married his partner before having their 2nd child?

[Gooftroop]

One child, fine. Maybe it was a surprise, these things happen, marriage is so yesterday, no problem. But to go on building a family without legally committing himself to his partner ... I am unimpressed. AIBU?

not as nicely as actual potatoes do.

Dr of what Damsel. Give us a hint at least?

No Coalition, Civil Partnerships are NOT the same as marriage. They look like they are, but they aren't when you delve into it thoroughly. That's why I'm campaigning for full marriage rights before I bother my arse. And maybe that's why EM isn't bothering his arse either.

I think this link may also show why some couples who are committed to equality might not wish to get married .. perhaps Ed just sees it as a nonsense

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

In what way are civil partnerships not marriage with a different name then?
Ed will have rights to the kids, of course he will! He might have to make an application to the court but if they were married, divorced and couldn't agree residence/access they would also have to go to court.

coldcomfort see the link above

Ed will have rights to the kids, of course he will!

No he wont as he isnt on the birth certificate for one of them..

ooh! I agree with marantha! I think it is vital that cohabitation is not the same, and I speak as someone who would have had a lot to gain by claiming half an ex-boyfriend's estate, but it would have been unfair.

It will be a mere formality for him to claim parental responsibility, and if she tried to deny it, the courts would make her pay all the costs. So yes, he would have rights.

I just want him to get the skates on and get his backside down to the registry office. It's not like he has a lot else to do.

Erm. What are the differences in the day to day lives, and the legalities for the couple? All I can see from that link is that Civil Partnerships are free from the historical "baggage" that marriages schlep with them.

The New Labour of marriage then?

Surely the "institution" of marriage is different for everyone. Just because traditionally the husband was the boss and little wifey did what she was told, doesn't mean to say that nowadays the same is true.

I am married, but would say I live in a partnership where both are equal. I am no more downtrodden than the woman in that link.

It is all a bit ernest and contrived to me, sorry.

Dr of nonsense, unruly! Obviously.

I do think less of Ed for not having married the woman who has his children. It is a blot on his honour. Not that it makes any difference to his ability to do his job.

MmeLindt I see no difference between civil partnerships and marriage, either.
From an objective legal/financial viewpoint, they appear the same to me and as I see marriage as being a legal/financial matter, this is all that matters.

All this 'baggage' I do not understand-it's not as if any offical bod comes around your house and demands to know if woman is playing housewife and man the 'provider', is it?

Nevertheless, perhaps civil partnerships for straight people MIGHT be a good idea as it would present what marriage is as a purely legal thing -perhaps that's not so bad?
It would cut to the chase, IYSWIM.

Nobody would be able to fob each other off with 'we don't need a piece of paper to love one another' or 'I am not religious' anymore.

I'm really muddled by the civil partnership / marriage difference too. Why can't a registry office marriage and a civil partnership be exactly the same? And why does the law seem to forbid a religious component to civil partership? (I think that is the situation isn't it? Quakers have a marriage service all ready and waiting for gay and lesbian couples, but the law forbids that as it stands, I think.)

I do think it's bizarre that, despite evidence to the contrary, people continue to believe that it's men who don;t want to get married!

Seriously? People care that a politician has children without being married? I appear to have unexpectedly wandered into 1903.

I haven't seen one valid argument to back up the vague suggestion that it is "just not right".

My particular favourite is the old " showing your partner that you are committed to them". I have shown my partner that for 10 years. I have loved him, lived with him, shared good and bad times with him, I have given birth to his child, raised that child together with him. I think he is probably pretty sure of my committment to him. And if he isn't, I can tell him. I can say "I am committed to you". I don't feel the need to wave a piece of paper about for the purpose.

Why the judgey disapproval?

In the UK from a legal perspective I believe I am right in saying that a woman and her children have more rights and recourse to a man's assets if the couple are legally married.

Personally, I believe in marriage, but that is my view and the way I have chosen to live my life. On the other hand, if he were a Tory , and on the other what about a politician being married and up to hanky panky elsewhere .

Oh dear is this about a politician being married or about a view in general. Being an MP is a job IMO and performance in the job is what matters.

Bucharest - me too

I appear to have walked into whatever year it was that people thought claiming they'd walked into the past was an amusing and original way to discredit someone else's point of view.

More women in unmarried coupledom want to be married than men. It makes sense as women usually get more protection and status with marriage than men. Hence men who hold out don't figure high in my book.

I didn't.

YABU

blueshoes- could the woman not make the proposal if she really wanted to get married.