To feel discriminated against because I cannot enter into a Civil Partnership because we are not Gay.

[happyclapper]

Having been married twice before and feeling it is, for me, a meaningless institution, I would like some legal form of commitment to my partner of 13yrs.
We have 2DS and I now only work part-time in order to facilitate my partners career and a stable home.
Consequently I have no pension and would be left fairly high and dry should anything happen to my partner.
This could be covered by a Will I quess but that would not help me if we simply decided to split.
I had a good job, pension scheme etc but have no chance now of returning after a 8yr abscence.
I think a civil arrangement would be perfect and can't understand why only same sex couples can enter into it.

Get over yourself- what a load of rubbish.

Maybe we should do away with the wholeconsummation issue by scrapping marriage and introducing CP for all instead? Then legal recognition could be open to pairs of people who don't have sex with each other but still consider themselves a partnership

ummamumma your description of consummation and observation that it applies to marriage, no equivalent in CP should tell us something important about the fundamental nature of the two things.
purple marriage is an institution,it is legally defined bythe State - it precisely is not the quivalent of friendship for those reasons.
OP could maybe have rephrased. Hetero couples aren't discriminated against by having marriage not CP - women are. That was the whole point of marriage; the fact that reforms have been made doesn't alter that. (Bingo cards ready - 'haven't you got something more important', 'me and my husband', 'all that's in the past', etc etc)

Gnome, no offence but I don't have time to go into this now; short answer is, similarly to marriage (circs change and so does legal position, as I'm sure you know a brief marriage without kids won't allow for same rights against the richer party as a long one with - a "fully entitled" spouse). I actually did my masters on this area - comparative study of the law pertaining to cohabitational breakdown - and it's fascinating but complex. Essentially it's a rights/freedom issue. There are worrying aspects to the state assuming commitments people haven't explicitly made, and it is a bit disturbing that a couple who thought they were having an affair and trying out living together may end up with the poorer party entitled to support from the richer, regardless of claimed contrary intention. But on the other hand, a woman who's been with the father of her kids for 30 years and would be a fully entitled spouse if married, gets nothing if she hasn't contributed in money or money's worth during the relationship. She gets a share of whatever resulted from her monetary contributions. People just do not know that. They assume domestic labour counts, and (ten years ago, at least; I stress that I haven't looked at the area since) it doesn't. That needs addressing in a society where fewer people, and perhaps most significantly parents, marry. Because at this moment in time, the person making almost all the career and income sacrifices when babies arrive is (usually) the woman. And marriage, contrary to some assertions here, provides at least some protection against that disadvantage to one party, whereas cohabitation, as far as I know and certainly a decade ago, provides none.

I think the issue of the OP's discrimination thing, which I think is poorly phrased and misplaced, is separate from the idea that people who dislike the institution of marriage of and in itself should be allowed to benefit from the financial advantages and protections. If so many people are uncomfortable in the extreme with marriage, but want some less value-laden form of commitment, why not provide that? What's the problem? Especially as a lot of cohabitees who feel marriage is a step too far might be willing to enter into a civil contract of partnership... which would provide precisely the certainty you (very rightly) think so helpful in determining rights and obligations. After all, if such a contract is entered into in a solicitor's office so that the parties can be advised on consequences, and perhaps a compulsory notice posted on a government website confirming the commitment, then that would be more public than a marriage, in actuality. Still cheaper and more flexible than a detailed agreement, and still not a wedding, with all the baggage of that. Can't see why the OP, and others, wanting something like that is unreasonable. Personally I'm very happy being married; suits me to a T. But people differ, and why not cater to that?

LeB0f, I can't help what the law is -it's all true.

Whether it is like or not, it is possible to annul a marriage if after the wedding the marriage partner does not put up the goods sexually.

Lottapianos, that isn't a bad idea and I suppose that it could be done, but then, if there is no sexual element, I don't see why civil partnerships should not be available to siblings or any other two people.

But marriage is something else: it involves a sexual element and, with the greatest will in the world, it's really difficult to apply things like consummation and definitions of adultery to gay people that are the same for heterosexuals.

So I suppose heterosexual people could have civil partnerships, but I fail to see how gay people could have marriage as we know it.

But then again, as things like consummation don't really matter, is it worth changing things? So perhaps it is a big fuss over nothing.

In any case, just because consummation is expected, doesn't mean to say that women can be forced into it. Thankfully, it is one thing to expect sex, another to force it.

There is no such thing as "fundamental nature" of marriage. The definition of sexual intercourse in the Marriage Act was was written when homosexuality was seen as illegal, immoral etc etc. If there was a will, consummation could de defined differently, adultery could be defined differently, homosexuals could marry if they wished.

could be defined ...

"Especially as a lot of cohabitees who feel marriage is a step too far might be willing to enter into a civil contract of partnership... "

but a civil partnership is not 'less' - it isn't 'marriage lite' it is marriage by another name, (with a very few slight differences which are unlikely to be material in most cases as detailed by other posters)...

I don't really see how, Jamie, I really have no idea how it could be altered to be the same for homosexual and heterosexual people.

In any case, while I do see that there are differences between civil partnerships and marriage, I don't really think it's worth peeing around further: like I said, civil partnerships may not be called marriage (but there are valid reasons for this : defining consummation/adultery) and civil partnerships may not be available to heterosexual people, but to all intents and purposes they are the same, so I just think it best to leave things as they are.

I agree that civil partnerships are not marriage lite; to get out of one is as burdensome as a divorce.

julia don't you see civil partnership as part of the tradition of marriage - though a recent development?

Why dont you both just write a will leaving each as the sole benefactor?

Because she's worried they'll split up before they die.

Ummamumma, that isn't the case everywhere. Under Canadian law you can only get an annulment on grounds of non-consummation for inability (including "invincible repugnance to the physical act of consummation, resulting in a paralysis of the will" as well as physical inability), not wilful refusal. If someone refuses without reason, then the only way out is a divorce, even if you're the gagging-for-it party. It isn't an essential component of marriage there, unless there is a complete physical inability to perform.

This is what tends to get to me about discussions about marriage. People say, "marriage is X!" and then cite English & Welsh law as evidence of that statement. Which is fine, except that they're extrapolating that to mean, marriage can only be X. Marriage can encompass an awful lot of models. And even in this country, your belief that non-consummation can always be relied upon if the non-refusing party wants an annulment is misplaced: there are cases where older people, who agreed before marriage that they won't have sex, have then been unable to get an annulment where one of them changed their minds afterwards. And an unconsummated marriage is not void - only voidable, if the non-refusing party wants out on that basis. It's not as simple as, "if sex is not involved, it isn't a real marriage." It's completely valid if both parties are happy with that. No outsider can claim a marriage is not valid just because no sexual element is involved, because only the party wanting sex, but not getting it, has legal standing to void it. Nobody else. Unless and until they do, a sexless marriage is as valid as any other.

Marriage isn't something set in stone. It's human created. We can and do change it. That's why I am happily esconced, as a feminist, in an institution that used to essentially make slaves of women. But I don't see why "this institution suits me" translates into "it suits me, so if you were reasonable, it would suit you". I don't care if I understand other people's reasons. It's a big deal, and therefore a model that would suit a big chunk of the population, currently unwilling to enter into the existing one, should at least not be dismissed out of hand.

If I were the OP, I'd just get married. It's highly unlikely that her or her spouse will not consummate the marriage. Even if they don't: they don't have to say they haven't. Nobody is going to check!!! I doubt they'll be nullifying the marriage on grounds of non-consummation. Very, very, very few people do.
As for adultery, well yes it grounds for divorce. But, then again, in a civil partnership if your partner cheats, you can always get out of it on grounds of unreasonable behaviour.

The differences seem irrelevant really. And no matter what the legal status, the nature of the relationship is up to the couple to make it what they will.

I do very much think that if rape within marriage were still legal, it would be worth fighting for heterosexual civil partnerships, but it's not, so why bother fighting for cp's?

EdgarAllen I'm not talking about a civil partnership as currently instituted, I was talking about the large numbers of people who avoid ceremonies and all the baggage, under the mistaken impression that they have legal standing as common law spouses. I actually set out a suggested signing of a pro forma contract in a solicitor's office, with the fact they've done so published online. That would be marriage - or rather CP - lite. It would just be an agreement to found a family, without all the historical/emotional baggage of a wedding. (Though I also think that, if people want a CP precisely because it is recent, and they therefore think it baggage free, although the history of bigotry underpinning it means I personally don't agree with that perspective... well, why not?)

My cousin and her wife had a CP followed by a religious ceremony, incidentally. Was as weddingy as weddings get. Really beautiful, one of the loveliest I've ever been to. I'm aware that the greater injustice is the fact that the state doesn't acknowledge that relationship as a marriage. I'm not really talking about CP and gay rights here; I'm concerned about the women in this country who have kids thinking they are "as good as married" and then find out, after having a couple of kids and making the usual career/salary sacrifices, that they have the same rights as a lodger.

perfect - I think what you describe could be sorted out by telling women 2 things

1. If you aren't married yo don't have rights
2. your wedding can be whatever you want it to be. People are simply mistakem if they think being married has to cost £15,000, take part in a marquee, involve wearing a dress, gazing lovingly into each other's eyes, or being under the control of one's spouse.

mistaken

take place (not take part)

I understand where you're coming from happyclapper but you're a little behind the curve. People are now campaigning for marriage to be legal for gay couples, rather than them being forced to settle for a different arrangement which they feel to be inferior and discriminatory.

If it's a legal agreement you want, I'm afraid that marriage is the only way to ensure the status, protection and entitlement marriage brings! It's the only option open to heterosexual couples, and that will not change.

The only thing that's likely to change is that gay marriage becomes legal, and replaces civil partnership altogether.

perfectstorm I do agree that what we have now is an all or nothing approach.

If what we have isnt good enough what do people want?

First off do we want to say that an explicit agreement is required? If not and it is up to the court to say that a tacit agreement was in place doesnt this then mean that the state has to peer into bedrooms? When did you start having sex? When did you stop? When did the relationship become exclusive? Is there a requirement for an agreement in hindsight to be exclusive?

If we decide that we want a 'not as all encompassing as marriage' agreement what are the constraints? Do people want to limit it by time eg this agreement lasts for say 5 years? Or do people want to limit it by assets eg this agreement only applies to these assets and not other ones?

I would worry that limited agreements would always benefit the asset holding partner. There is so much opportunity for abuse.

JamieAndTheOlympicTorch, forgive me, but no, it couldn't. A LOT of women are saying, on this thread and elsewhere, that the very notion of marriage is one they're seriously uncomfortable with. And you're also assuming that people live in a vacuum, where social and familial expectations either don't exist or have no importance to them. A lot of people just don't want to be married, because of the weight of social and emotional history and expectation on that, but are happy to be in a long term relationship, and would like to be protected within that as a family, as indeed they think they often are. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Saying "stop thinking differently to me, and it would all be fine" is not a solution.

The frustrating thing, reading this thread, is how little the sides seem to listen to one another. I am happy with marriage; you are happy with it; a lot of posters are. That does not mean that other posters, who plainly and clearly say they aren't, should have to be or else they're not reasonable. It is not their job or role to validate our opinions and life choices by coming around to sharing them. The situation I mention is a recognised, oft-debated topic in family law circles. All family law books discuss it; the Law Commission have written White Papers on it; minor law students like me have based their post-graduate research studies on it. it's complicated because conferring rights on some will invariably mean limiting the freedoms of others, and the law is (rightly) chary of legislating personal relationships. It's complicated because there are an array of solutions, all very imperfect, as is inherent in family law, I think. People are just not tidy. But this is a problem, and if it were as simple as, "everyone think like me and it would all be fine" then less printing ink would have been spent on the subject. It is not simple at all. And it's a real, genuine problem.

Gnome - I don't think a limited time contract is ever the answer, unless it automatically converts to an unlimited when kids are born, for exactly the reasons you state. (It's why pre-nups need, IMO, always to be looked into as a part of ancillary relief proceedings, rather than determining the outcome, if they're to become part of our law, to ensure the weaker party wasn't taken advantage of at the negotiations stage. It should be a gold-digger deterrent, not a strong-arming of one side.) But it would offer clarity if a Family Relationship Agreement could be entered into, I think. It would need people to research what that should be; I know I found my own opinions at the start of my research were miles away from the ones I had at the end.

Personally (and it's a view I formed way before I had kids, on the data I knew about at the time, so I might think very differently if I looked at it again now), I think that a couple who cohabit for 5 years should acquire some de facto rights; less if they have kids in that time, when it should be from 2 years. I think it should be a lesser obligation than marriage - no yardstick of equality, but the old concept of reasonable needs - and I think the very short time that was required in some Australian states in the early years of this century are intrusive and unreasonable.

perfectstorm interesting post, but if people don't want to be married because of the weight of ... "expectation" (ie obligations), why would they expect to be protected within a long term relationship?

Why would partners who are unwilling to accept the obligations of marriage accept the obligations in some kind of some kind of halfway house arrangement anyway?

Aside from the obvious obligation of a parent to a child, you can't force obligations on to people who refuse to accept them. The whole point of marriage is that you mutually agree to obligations which confer lawful rights on each other.

this isn't a difference of opinion though is it?

it's a difference of knowledge.

people seem to think a huge amount is involved in getting married - which doesn't have to be involved. the legal basics are fairly sparse.

there are some on this thread who think a civil partnership is in some way different and would involve less - but in actual fact it is virtually the same thing, done in much the same way.

so the problem surely isn't the reality of the law, but in the perception that a marriage must involve 'love honour and obey, being given away by father - no change in the law is required to do away with these things, because they aren't legally required.

and the perception that there is such a thing as 'common law' marriage. again, i don't want people to be able to slide into marriage unthinkingly - so i see the problem as lying with the perception rather than the reality of the law.