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.

They've chosen not to have children, that's their choice. It takes nothing at all from the fact that marriage is designed for people to have a family.

Rhetorician, in fairness the state doesn't impose any kind of de facto on anyone. One party has to go to court to access de facto law, in order to protect their position. It isn't like the Relationships Police batter down your door and start demanding to know what positions you favour. Similarly, there's no community property within marriage in England and Wales unless you split up, and want there to be by calling on the courts rather than sorting it out yourselves via negotiation. The state is happy to stay out of relationships; you need one party to call on it, for it to step in. There's even the No Order Principle where kids are involved - that unless absolutely necessary, a judge shouldn't make any order at all.

As long as there's a requirement that it isn't as encompassing as marriage, but recognises a family relationship existed and that some obligations should flow from that, I still think it's better than what we have, certainly where there are kids, and one party has shouldered most of the responsibility for raising them.

There was a case where a woman married a bloke in the 1960s, they had two kids, and then divorced. She got the Mini and the council flat. Less than a year after the decree absolute, they reconciled, and she had another kid. They stayed together another 25 years and had another kid, and he built up a multi-million second hand car business. She did some accounts for him in the earliest years, entertained clients, ran the home and raised the kids pretty much single handed. They never remarried because they never saw the need. Then when she was in her 50s, he left her for another woman, and allotted her £12 grand a year to live on as a goodwill payment. The court held that that was generous of him as he didn't need to give her anything, now the kids were grown up. If they'd been married, she'd have been entitled to a hefty settlement. (In the wake of some more recent big money cases, she could even have argued for half.)

I'm not saying an unmarried couple should be treated the same as a married, because the commitment hasn't been explicitly made (another reason I think CP should be available to all, or some sort of pro forma contractual agreement, as well as marriage). I am saying that the law needs to recognise that family labour and bonds can be performed and made outside marriage. At the moment, there's a huge gap in the law. The problem of how to fix that is recognised, but there's a rights issue in imposing obligations, too. It's a toughie, no question.

Marriage is about property rights. It's just taken as a given that sexually active adults will mostly have children, that's all.

"But it would be absurd to apply some of the same rules that apply to marriage to gay people. For example, when a couple marry, the husband is automatically assumed to be the father of any child his wife gives birth to. It would be nonsensical to apply this to gay people."

Actually, if I remember rightly, if a gay couple are in a CP and have a baby, the only step they need to take to have it assumed they are co-parents is to jointly register the birth; it shouldn't be too difficult to assume that a couple in a gay marriage plan to co-parent a child of that marriage, unless evidence to the contrary is provided. Just as in a straight marriage, where it is a rebuttable presumption that the father is the husband. So no, not nonsensical at all.

And again, you're rather assuming the law is set in granite, sent down from on high, and the same in all places for all time. It isn't: the law changes so fast that even undergrad textbooks are uselessly out of date within 3 years. It moves at the speed of light, especially in common law jurisdictions where judge-made precedents are so important. All you need to make a marriage fit a gay couple's circumstances is to insert a couple of clauses.

ummamumma if you're right about marriage being about babies, why are old people allowed to marry? Or should post-menopausal women be blocked?

It's not just about property rights. Why do people need to get married for property rights? Isn't signing a form about who owns what with a solicitor enough?

It is about providing recognition and protecting a sahm who has no money of her own (or a stay-at-home father) from having nothing should her spouse leave or die.
It allows for non-financial contributions made to the relationship i.e. looking after children to be considered of worth.
The whole business of marriage has children in mind.

perfectstorm, can you imagine the outcry if they were?! Not worth the hassle of stopping them.

"perfectstorm, can you imagine the outcry if they were?! Not worth the hassle of stopping them."

Older women in your view should be banned from marrying, because they can't have babies? Tell me, do you think infertile women should be, too? Cancer survivors, perhaps?

"But if gay couples can adopt, it's only right that they're offered something analogous to marriage even if it can't be marriage. I see that."

How generous of you.

No, they should not be banned from marrying at all. That's not what I said.

And any government that tried to ban them from marrying would face a lot of hassle and it would not be worth the effort.

Also, any system won't necessarily be used for what it is designed for: government's accept this.

Marriage is designed for people to have babies.
And, frankly, you're attempts to make me out to be the bad guy for pointing out this very obvious fact is pathetic.

And I very much believe that gay people should be allowed civil partnerships Purely because they can adopt. And children need the protection of their parents being in a legal relationship.
Because the only reason society has any business in sticking it's nose into people's love affairs is because of children. And rightly so.

perfectstorm you are right regarding the position of parents in a civil partnership - this is a relatively recent change in the UK. The situation I was describing is what applies here in Ireland - it's a mess and a muddle and it's not clear what kind of proof is required - I suspect that the CP for heterosexual couples will, in the end, be used to stop a couple claiming separately for social welfare. It is the 'Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act' - but this is a diversion from the discussion, so just ignore!

Marriage is, and always has been, about safeguarding property rights, and the transmission of these between generations. This is why legitimacy was historically so important (no DNA tests!), and why female chastity mattered so much. It ensures that property transfers along blood lines.

perfectstorm if you are referring to the Australia/New Zealand "de facto" relationships, they are far from a perfect solution - they're even messier than marriages when they end!

news.domain.com.au/victoria/de-factos-tell-all-in-property-disputes-20120325-1vsj4.html

You know ummamumma, if your own words make you look "the bad guy" then perhaps you should consider your statements, rather than blame the person who directly and fully quotes you?

Just a thought.

Perfectstorm I dont think that the civil law of marriage looks to regulate marriage itself (though religious doctrine often does). IMO what it looks to do is provide a boundary to the relationship. The start point is the date you enter into it, the end point is death or divorce. Everything between the two boundaries is part of the marriage.

It is (relatively) simple. The difficulty is that anything less straightforward is just jam for lawyers.

ummamumma, my male partner and I are childfree (I'm female). Should we be allowed a civil partnership in that case as we're not planning to have any children?

Sorry, perfectstorm your 21.14 post made my post above perfectly clearly and rather better!

I think your comment about 'never saw the need' to regularise the second relationship is telling. I would guess that given the dates the exwife in the relationship believed herself to be a common law wife.

Interestingly I dont think that in the last few years I have seen that idea of 'common law' spouse being referred to in the press. The modern terminology is partner though I suspect the underlying assumption of rights is still present.

Olgaga firstly that's an article from a journal owned by a very right wing media organisation, Fairfax. No offence, but it's hardly something to base your whole opinion on. You might as well link to an article in the Daily Mail as sole backup for your legal opinion. (And I really don't understand why you mention New Zealand, either. It's a completely independent nation with totally separate laws and judiciary - isn't even part of the Federation - the article doesn't refer to NZ at all.)

Secondly, as I explained, the law will have developed hugely from where it was a decade ago, when I studied it - there were only individual state laws on de facto relationships then, not a Federal one as was passed in 2009, for a start. So I can't really comment on the law as it at the moment in Australia, because I just don't know enough to do so, and nor do I have access to the scholarly journals to try to form an educated opinion. I can say that the more I looked into it ten years ago, the more I felt Australia had moved too far into acknowledging relationships of relatively short duration, and that the right of people to have brief live-in relationships without ever intending to become life partners was being infringed upon in a way that seemed unreasonable. That was why I thought, at that time, that after 5 years without kids, and after being together for 2 years before having them (because of the fact that statistically, a mother usually starts providing far more domestic labour after kids arrive, and is usually primarily responsible for the child - though not always) it should be open to the weaker party to seek to establish a familial tie in court, if they needed financial support as a result of the relationship's ending. I also thought you should have a staggered degree of responsibility, just as you do in marriage in this country; a marriage of 5 years' duration does not entitle you to anything like as much as one of 35. And I thought de facto rights shouldn't be equivalent to marital, because of the lack of provable clarity of intention. But to infer no family-type responsibilities at all, especially after long relationships, just seems unrealistic. Not to mention, after very long relationships, cruel.

Again, there are no simple, wholly successful solutions to a problem with family law. It's always a mess whatever you do, by the very nature of human relationships. Find me a fully litigated contact dispute which does anything but devastate all sides, and I'll be amazed. And would you say that the number of men wanting DNA tests to delay CSA payments means women shouldn't be entitled to chase fathers for maintenance at all? Or that disputed versions of events in child contact disputes should mean the non-resident parent has no recourse whatsoever, when wanting to see their child? Mess is just what happens when two people who once loved one another deeply are trying to screw one another over. It's what family law is so often all about.

I am very ready to believe it's a mess in Australia, but so is the law in this country when it comes to cohabitational breakdown. Family law is messy. The only question is how the balance between individual rights and competing freedoms is struck, and there will always be winners and losers from a system trying to impose structure on individual lives. The only question is whether a legal framework helps more people than doing without one, and the answer to that is always going to be unknowable, really. And probably, like divorce, or child contact, very dependent upon who you know and what their experiences have been. Extremely subjective.

Gnome, funnily enough the thing that convinced me on de facto law being the way to go was a survey quoted by (I think?) Rebecca Probert, which found that over 70% of the public thought a long term relationship gave you rights similar to marriage. Now, I accept that a publicity campaign could inform people to the contrary, but the other thing that bothered me were some cases where it seemed the man was a pig in general, who would probably keep promising marriage until the kids were there, the woman a SAHM, and then whine that it was just a piece of paper - in one case, a woman was entitled to a share of the house because he freely admitted he'd lied in telling her that she was too young to have her name on the deeds, and that was held as evidence of intention (rather weirdly, if I'm remembering correctly, because as a lecturer said it was actually evidence to the contrary) of her shared ownership, so she was okay. If he'd not admitted that, she'd have been screwed. So what struck me was that he'd deliberately sought to trap a woman who must have been less than 21 at the time, and had retained that intention through a long relationship, that involved kids, while she had completely trusted him. And we see posts on MN all the time from women who miserably want to marry their delightful-sounding "D"Ps, just because they want the family bond, and have no clue that they've basically laid themselves open to real exploitation. I mean, it's all well and good to say people shouldn't be forced into responsibilities without agreeing, but is it really fair that some women are left high and dry, because they loved and built a family with someone selfish and irresponsible, who always had an eye to their own financial position, should they bail? I don't really think so. Obviously the converse of that are partners who do sod all, and sit on their backsides, who then expect to benefit from an industrious spouse - at least with a marriage the spouse actively chose to take on that level of responsibility for them. Again, not easy. But I do think that, similarly to prenups, the potential of harm to the weaker party is apparent.

It's so complex, and there are no right answers, I don't think. Just less-bad compromises, whichever route is adopted.

As far as I'm aware "de facto" relationships are only recognised in Australia, NZ and a few states in the US. Whether the report I linked to is a right-wing media organisation or not, the examples reported do exist. Just as, occasionally, things you read about in the Daily Mail actually happened.

Unless a de facto relationship is registered (requiring the consent of both parties, just as in a marriage) then on separation or death a court has to decide the status of the relationship before they even get to argue about division of assets, arrangements for children or inheritance. In cases where the de facto relationship is disputed, that's not an easy (or cheap) matter.

Marriage doesn't mean there will be no dispute on separation - far from it. But at least it shows both parties accepted their obligations to each other. As does the registration of a de facto relationship.

The point I am making is that de facto relationships are far from being a simple alternative as you implied in your post at 22.37. The issue of whether intention or obligation exists remains, unless it is formally registered. In de facto cases it may be imposed, but there is no certainty. For cohabiting couples in systems of de jure rather than de facto, there is the certainty that it cannot.

And we see posts on MN all the time from women who miserably want to marry their delightful-sounding "D"Ps, just because they want the family bond, and have no clue that they've basically laid themselves open to real exploitation. I mean, it's all well and good to say people shouldn't be forced into responsibilities without agreeing, but is it really fair that some women are left high and dry, because they loved and built a family with someone selfish and irresponsible, who always had an eye to their own financial position, should they bail? I don't really think so.

I agree with you here - but surely the answer is for women to make sure they don't have children with men who won't marry them! No-one forces them to take that risk.

Anyway, must go to bed.

I think most reasonable people would accept that even a woman who has married but not produced children nor worked or contributed financially should be entitled to hardly any assets accrued from the marriage in the event of divorce.

This would apply to a man who has done nothing, too.

So when the couple are UNMARRIED and the woman has not worked or produced children, there would be even less entitlement i.e. zilch.

Cohabitee rights are not necessary-because the modern-day woman has worked and thus contributed financially and most people have it on paper on bills etc OR not worked and therefore nobody in their right mind would argue she should be entitled to anything.

Or are sexual favours worthy of compensation. You know what that makes women... Hardly feminist to want cohabitee rights.

perfectstorm You are right about a lesbian couple in a civil partnership can register themselves of a baby that one of them has given birth to via artificial insemination.

But what if that child has been produced via a one-night stand with a male?

The husband of a wife is automatically assumed to be the father of her child.
It would be ridiculous and absurd for a lesbian couple to pass off their baby as their own.
There is no way that a registrar is just going to accept parenthood of the child 'just like that'. There could (could??!!! wtf am I saying??!! Of course there would be!) a man out there with claim to paternity.

This is why it would be impossible to marry and not civilly partner gay people.

Just go to the registry office, sign some papers and stop making a song and dance over it. It's not discrimination at all.

Which papers SecretPlace? The marriage papers? Or the civil partnership papers? Coz you can't have a choice you see - the government choose for you. It depends on the sex of your partner. Sounds rather like discrimination to me.

So, the institute of marriage is not for you?
Well, didn't that institute start as a formalising a legal contract between two parties in order to protect inheritance and other legal stuff like that?

It seems to me that that is exactly what you want. A legal and formal recognition of you and your partner.

All the rest is add-ons.
Don't know what offends you about that.

The marriage papers.

For gods sake people will find anything to whine about. Gay people have had to fight for this 'civil partnership', when they want marriage. Its got the same sentiment, does it matter?
If they don't want the big flouncy lovey dovey day they can just sign the papers.

People will find discrimination in anything. If the OP doesn't want marriage, then get a soliciter and draw some papers up. That's it.

See it from this point of view. Gay people don't have the chance to be married, they have civil partnership. But they can turn it into a lovely day that isn't just about legal binding.

So why can't the OP flip this and use the marriage as simple legal binding.

She isn't being discriminated against, there are reasons it's like this. People just like throwing the woeful 'I'm discriminated' phrase.

I feel discriminated because I can't use men's toilets when the ladies are full.... ;)