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.

do you think that when two people have a civil partnership they just sit at a table with a lawyer and sign an agreement?

They have what is just a wedding by another name. Looking into one anothers eyes and hand holding.

You don't have to 'gaze' into anyone's eyes. Just go in sign the papers and leave...simple

do you think that when two people have a civil partnership they just sit at a table with a lawyer and sign an agreement?

Yes.

-head desk-

If it matters a lot to you then have a civil marriage ceremony.

However, I think you're attaching a lot of issues to this which are actually nothing to do with civil partnership versus marriage. There is no reason why you should step down your career and only work part time. And it's madness not to have your own pension , whether you're married or not. So in essence, I see your point BUT I feel you are bringing other things in which aren't relevant. Sort out your work life and pension irrespective of whether you're married or living together

Seriously? Are you making a joke? You think there isn't a ceremony or celebration or meal or special outfits or any of that?

Or were you kidding?

Oh, btw

YABVVU

I see the conundrum now

Gay people can't call it a marriage - though it is a marriage except in name. Even if they want to.
Straight people can't call it a Civil Partnership. They have to call it a marriage even if they don't want to.

The part I don't get is why the OP is s against marriage. My Marriage is what I make it - not what it historically or culturally meant.

Yes, agree that you can have a Civil Marriage with no 'ceremony' at all. Just the legal wording, in front of a Registrar and two witnesses. There need be no more to it than that. It should take about 5 minutes, I should think.

Marriages/Weddings/Civil ceremonies - however you want to present it, is entirely up to you. Lots of Civil Ceremonies I have been to are 'Weddings' in all but name (with all the money, outfits, reception, finery etc) and some marriages have literally been 10 minutes in and out. It really is up to you what you make of it.

But yes, in essence, we should all have exactly the same the options regardless.

(out of interest, is there a reason why Civil Ceremonies don't fall foul of Anti-discrimination legislation? Is it purely because of the religious element? And if so, why aren't only church unions called Marriages and everything a Civil ceremony?)

civil parnterships are still held at the registrars office, and therefor ehtey sit at a table and sign the register in front of the registrar not a lawyer. just the same as a civil marriage.

You don't need a ceremony(with it's ceremonial woo) to have a civil partnership.I'm with my partner because I choose to be not because I've made promises in some ceremony.It's very wrong that other couples can't have the same and for the life of me I can't see why the rules can't include diff sex couples.It's ridiculous.

No, I wasn't kidding. I'm civil partnered (not in the UK though.) It's exactly as you said, you sit down with a lawyer and sign the dotted line, then go home. The whole thing is ten minutes tops (you have to book the appointment in advance.)

Of course if you want to have a meal and wear special outfits etc. nothing's going to keep you from doing that, but it's your own private arrangement, nothing to do with concluding the civil partnership itself. You book a venue and invite people and do whatever you want. Or not, depending on your preference.

All these people suggesting a "civil ceremony" don't seem to grasp that a civil ceremony is still a wedding and therefore results in a marriage, whether you invite people and dress up or not. OP doesn't want to get married.

I tell you what you can have my right to have a civil partnership and I'll have your right to have marriage. Because I would love nothing more than to be legally able to call my partner my wife to say that we're married but I can't. Life sucks

You can have a civil wedding. Stop being so dog in the manger about it.

Or get cast iron wills and agreements in place and protect your own assets. What you don't get to do is moan about being discriminated against because you don't want to be 'married' but you do want to be in a partnership. Just how many legal hairs do you expect the government to split?

And Gay people are discriminated against more, IMO, because they can't have a "splicing" ceremony that is legally binding in a church, if they want one, because marriage ceremonies in church are only called Marriages.

Sorry Nothern there is no argument for diff sex couples not to have exactly the same.Splitting hairs

if the word marriage bothers you that much, you can go the more expensive option and just get legal agreements to cover the necessary things.

but really, i think you believe things are involved in a registry office marriage that aren't (or don't have to be)

Sorry how ridiculous to make this a discrimination competition.Op hasn't belittled the discrimination the gay community encounter.

Honestly as far as I can see the only possible reason against diff sex civil arrangements is the fact the gov(particularly this Tory one)wants couples with kids in marriage.

rockpool other than the name, what's different?

YABU to feel discriminated against because you can't have everything.

You can have a civil marriage. This can be as un-lovey-dovey as you like.

Or you could see a solicitor and make a financial arrangement.

Either way, you have options.

Happyclapper, I assume you're just bored and want to wind people up. Ifind it hard to believe you really can't understand why you don't need a civil ceremony and are certainly not a victim of discrimination. In simpleton simple terms, you have the option of a civil marriage in a register office. How much hooplah you have is entirely up to you. If you want it to be just you and your partner and no fuss then that is what you should do. Clear?

"
Honestly as far as I can see the only possible reason against diff sex civil arrangements is the fact the gov(particularly this Tory one)wants couples with kids in marriage."

what?

the only reason civil partnerships are called something different is because it would have been harder to get passed (by the last govt).

Rockpool - I disagree. The CP is a sop to the gay community, many of whom would actually like to be married but the concept would not be stomached by the big religions.

"The govt may wants couple with kids in marriages" - actually this OP wants her child to be protected by marriage (without calling it marriage), so they seem to be in agreement.

I feel that there is some point here that I am completely missing.

Two people who have legally/religiously exchanged vows are married, aren´t they?

A gay couple are married to each other, aren´t they-although they may not be able to legally call it that, they become each other´s next of kin & have the same rights as a male/female married couple?

I get this.

We should have both options, both open to either same or different sex couples. What's so difficult to get your head around?