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.

Straight people feeling discriminated against because they can't have the kind of compromised marriage that many gay couples feel is not adequate remind me of F4J, or the EDL.

The ugly, selfish side of identity politics - ignoring your massive privilege and whinging about an invented victimhood.

I tend to agree ATINYL

Also agree atinyl

Amazingly, OP, it seems David Cameron is your friend on this one:

"Currently couples marrying in a register office must pledge to take each other as ?my wedded husband? or ?my wedded wife?.

"If marriage law is reformed in line with the rewrite of red tape, then couples will be required at a civil wedding to pledge themselves to ?my wedded partner?."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115677/Dont-use-words-husband-wife-Coalitions-sex-wedding-reforms-axe-terms-official-documents.html

History of marriage - bride given away by father, rape in marriage not recognised until 1983 (?), wife had no legal standing, custody rights, right to own property/money, husband could beat wife, 'man and wife', best man at wedding symbolises kidnap gang, wife and children have husband's name, wife gave up govt job on marriage (eg my mother 1958) etc etc. Why do it if you don't have to? Hideous institution.

I would look to going abroad.....or what is the wording like in Scotland? You can get married in any building/permanant structure in Scotland too.

Or can you not get a solictor to draw you both up a legal doc ( a bit like a pre-nup style thing) stating that you are partners etc.

It won't stand in a legal court of law but you would feel that you had something formal but with your own wording.

Although, I thihk you could take this much further (with human rights court) as discrimination against heterosexual couples.

"History of marriage - bride given away by father, rape in marriage not recognised until 1983 (?), wife had no legal standing, custody rights, right to own property/money, husband could beat wife, 'man and wife', best man at wedding symbolises kidnap gang, wife and children have husband's name, wife gave up govt job on marriage (eg my mother 1958) etc etc. Why do it if you don't have to? Hideous institution."

Well if that kind of history offends you, I presume you aren't comfortable being a British citizen.

Hideous institutions.

The word to focus on in your post Julia is "History"

Yes it was a terrible life for women for many many years but it isnt any longer. Should we not do anything that was once appalling for the people concerned?

Not getting married because women used to be treated very badly, and legally so, is bloody ridiculous! Thats like saying that you are not going to drive a car because they didnt used to have seat belts!

YAB SO U

Don't give me this crap that poor hetero people being discriminated against. Has anyone ever threatened to beat you up because you're walking down the street holding your partner's hand? Are you scared of kissing your partner in the street? Would your relationship be illegal and punishable by death in several countries?

No. It wouldn't. So you can campaign for civil partnerships for all (although what the arsing point would be, I don't know) but don't even think about saying you're discriminated against, because that is just utter crap.

Seatbelts are sensible protection. Marriage is celebration of vile historical practice. I don't celebrate being a British 'citizen' either, because we're not - we're subjects of Her Madge. If we become citizens, I'll celebrate that. Not over enthusiastic about being British; luckier than being Afghan, but down to mother living here, not my decision.

Yellow Peter Tatchell disagrees with you.

I do think its a bit petulant to feel "discriminated against", but I don't think its unreasonable to want a civil partnership and not a marriage.

Here in France, civil partnership is open to both hetero and homosexual couples. And TONS of hetero couples choose it over marriage. That means they also choose it over civil marriage in registry offices.

I think different couples have different reasons for choosing it, but the common theme is that they don't want any kind of public ceremonial hooplah, or expense. Everything about it is quicker, simpler and cleaner than a marriage ceremony.

I also agree with those who have said that marriage is a loaded term, whereas partnership is just...a much nicer label, IMO.

yellow you rightly condemn violence from homophobic bigots but can't see the connection between history of marriage law and the current rates of domestic violence (1 in4) and sexual abuse (1 in 5). Seriously?

Surely the whole point about a relationship is looking forward not looking back. I am not my grandmother, I am me. Being married did not stop me being me and turn me into my grandmother.

I have been married for over 20 years but only changed my name recently. It made far less difference than I imagined. Possibly helped by separating marriage and name change.

If you want some agreement that you just sign a form for then I really hope it wont happen as the opportunities for abuse are legion.

If you want a simple civil marriage then that exists. Stop whinging about it and just get on with it. IMO not formalising a relationship which has produced children just to make some sort of point is silly.

That is your opinion.

It's not too hard to itemise the legal effects of marriage and have a solicitor do the contracts. H1 and I did it - I say we were married for ease, but that's what we did. When we 'divorced' we had to undo our contract, same as when you undo a marriage.

Contracts are binding. The only reason pre-nups are a grey area is because the marriage contract has fixed terms, which legally override the private deal. If you don't do the legal marriage your contract is watertight.

Or you can just wait for Scameron to remove the husband/wife from officialdom and bob's your uncle :)

Go to a solicitors and see if you can draw up a legal document to sort out a document that will offer you the legal protection that you want.

Gnome exactly.
so why saddle yourself with an institution from medieval times?

I remember being in a FB group called Tom and Kat's Straight-Gay Marriage. They wanted to take the matter of no marriage for gay folk/no civil partnerships for straight folk before the European Court of Human Rights.

I'm not really sure what happened with it. I must have lost interest. Maybe they did too.

JuliaScurr, do you really think that by introducing civil partnerships, domestic violence would stop?

Sure. Let's try that, shall we? I find it unlikely.

Rockpool, what does Peter Tatchell think and why should I change my opinion to match his, just because he's a prominent gay rights campaigner?

Julia, you would be right if your 'history' actually related to marriage today and to everyones marriage.
I am dhs partner in all things, didn't give up work etc. Dh does half the childcare and housework. Not to help me out because we are partners. I have always worked.
Incidentally my nana never gave up work either. She was a very I dependant strong woman she carried on being her not grandads wife. The things you describe, did happen. Still happen in some marriages, that does not mean marriage itself is a bad thing.

Julia, the terms of marriage have changed somewhat.

I sympathise - I disliked calling myself a "wife", only for the political associations it has in my mind - but it's going a bit far to resent the entire institution for what it used to be.

As someone has said, it's like resenting all of history for past atrocities. No matter who you are, your ancestors did disgusting things in the name of your country/race/tribe/whatever. It doesn't mean you have to resent your country/race/tribe/whatever for all eternity, if it's improved since then.