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.

I think the solution would be all 'ceremonies' in registry offices to be civil partnerships, and all church 'ceremonies' to be marriages. And it would stop all this fighting over what's what and what folk are entitled to be married, civil partnered or whatever.

It would be better actually if the legally binding bit had to be done in a registry office, and if you wanted a religious ceremony as well then you could afterwards. I think that's what they do in some countries.

Yes I agree Chub. That would be the best answer for everybody. The system now is causing nothing but trouble.

Yes, that happens here in Germany.

You have to have a civil ceremony first or it is not legal.

perfectstorm the difficulty is how do you make a less all encompassing agreement work when it is potentially going to have to cover a situation which is all encompassing (children, illness, death). Stuff happens when you were least expecting it. That agreement which was just supposed to cover how the record collection gets split suddenly has to cover a whole lot more.

You start with an agreement that says that you want to be bound to someone for now but you downt want it to cover all your assets. TBH if this is what you want then you would probably be best just going to a solicitor and drawing up appropriate agreements. The risk you run though is that one person changes their side without telling the other.

The thing with CM/CP is that it marks both the start and end of a relationship.

If a person doesnt want to be bound by marriage then fine, dont do it. Just dont complain afterwards that sorting out the mess is expensive and drags on.

"
Sorry. You are right. I should just enter into an institution that has a massive failure rate and has failed for me twice already."

there is a failure rate for partnerships, and it is essentially the same institution.

from what you say, not only don't want a marriage, you don't want a CP either (as it is virtually the same) - you should just sort out the legal side without any public ceremony of any kind.

Edgar's right. Couples break up whether they're married, or in a civil partnership or not. It's not the registry office or church that splits people up, it's the relationship going wrong!

You sound so anti marriage that if I were you I would just go to a solicitor to avoid any chance of romance creeping up on you.

And to reiterate, I think your cry of discrimination is an insult to gay and lesbian couples who have fought for years and can still ONLY have a CP and nothing else.

"Sorry. You are right. I should just enter into an institution that has a massive failure rate and has failed for me twice already"

Nothing magical will happen to ensure this one doesn't fail if you have a CP. Conversely, nothing terrible will happen if you get married.

CP is a marriage to all intent and purpose. It is what gay people fought for so that they had an equivalent to being married.

Why not just go to see a solicitor and have documents drawn up. There is little you can't have sorted out legally that you would get from a CP or marriage.

noddy - my marriage ceremony had nothing at all in it to signify ownership or patriarchy.

I am unsure as to whether or not you are being unreasonable.

There are minor differences between civil partnerships and marriage: there is no element of consummation in a civil partnership-probably because nobody can think of what consummation should be with gay people.
Also, adultery is not permitted as an excuse in itself to end a civil partnership-it has to come under the heading of 'unreasonable behaviour'.

Incidentally, this is probably why gay marriage won't be introduced: nobody can think of a gender-neutral definition of consummation and adultery. NOTHING to do with homophobia.

However, since you don't offer the above as reasons not to wed, then you are being unreasonable: seriously, the legal rights are much the same in mariage or civil partneships.
I think if you want the legal rights bundle of marriage, you have to get married.
You can't run to the government to help you in the event of divorce/death if not married and no agreement made, that's not reasonable.

Yes - legal papers are contestable, but you can also contest arrangements arising from a marriage also.

What legal protection exactly is it that you seek?

Clearly marriage isn't a meaningless institution - it's a legal contract and provides you with everything you seem to be looking for - legally! Get thee to a registry office.

I'm really sorry I'm so late to this thread but I have to say (in big neon letters) YANBU OP. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST!

I feel exactly the same as you do. I would love to make a legal commitment to my partner but am very anti-marriage. There are few practical differences between marriage and CP but there are huge symbolic differences which make all the difference in my view. Every one else who feels they want to be married should go for it, but it's not an option for me or for OP by the sounds of it.

And yes, it 100% is discriminatory. One rule for straights, another for gays - how is that even remotely equal? Just because gay people face discrimination in other areas of life doesn't mean that this isnt' discrimination against straight folk. If you haven't already, please join the Equal Love campaign (just google 'equal love' to find the website) - it's Peter Tatchell's campaign to legalise marriage for all and CP for all - and that really does mean ALL, any two people who want a CP, not just couples in sexual relationships. There's a case going through the ECHR right now and they are very hopeful of victory.

I'm really sorry I'm so late to this thread but I have to say (in big neon letters) YANBU OP. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST!

I feel exactly the same as you do. I would love to make a legal commitment to my partner but am very anti-marriage. There are few practical differences between marriage and CP but there are huge symbolic differences which make all the difference in my view. Every one else who feels they want to be married should go for it, but it's not an option for me or for OP by the sounds of it.

And yes, it 100% is discriminatory. One rule for straights, another for gays - how is that even remotely equal? Just because gay people face discrimination in other areas of life doesn't mean that this isnt' discrimination against straight folk. If you haven't already, please join the Equal Love campaign (just google 'equal love' to find the website) - it's Peter Tatchell's campaign to legalise marriage for all and CP for all - and that really does mean ALL, any two people who want a CP, not just couples in sexual relationships. There's a case going through the ECHR right now and they are very hopeful of victory.

I'm really sorry I'm so late to this thread but I have to say (in big neon letters) YANBU OP. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST!

I feel exactly the same as you do. I would love to make a legal commitment to my partner but am very anti-marriage. There are few practical differences between marriage and CP but there are huge symbolic differences which make all the difference in my view. Every one else who feels they want to be married should go for it, but it's not an option for me or for OP by the sounds of it.

And yes, it 100% is discriminatory. One rule for straights, another for gays - how is that even remotely equal? Just because gay people face discrimination in other areas of life doesn't mean that this isnt' discrimination against straight folk. If you haven't already, please join the Equal Love campaign (just google 'equal love' to find the website) - it's Peter Tatchell's campaign to legalise marriage for all and CP for all - and that really does mean ALL, any two people who want a CP, not just couples in sexual relationships. There's a case going through the ECHR right now and they are very hopeful of victory.

I haven't read the thread but YANBU.

Mixed-sex CPs should be introduced at the same time as same-sex marriage.

I know a lot of people who don't particularly want to get married but have to to get the legal protections. They much prefer a CP as it doesn't have the massive historical baggage.

I'm really sorry I'm so late to this thread but I have to say (in big neon letters) YANBU OP. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST!

I feel exactly the same as you do. I would love to make a legal commitment to my partner but am very anti-marriage. There are few practical differences between marriage and CP but there are huge symbolic differences which make all the difference in my view. Every one else who feels they want to be married should go for it, but it's not an option for me or for OP by the sounds of it.

And yes, it 100% is discriminatory. One rule for straights, another for gays - how is that even remotely equal? Just because gay people face discrimination in other areas of life doesn't mean that this isnt' discrimination against straight folk. If you haven't already, please join the Equal Love campaign (just google 'equal love' to find the website) - it's Peter Tatchell's campaign to legalise marriage for all and CP for all - and that really does mean ALL, any two people who want a CP, not just couples in sexual relationships. There's a case going through the ECHR right now and they are very hopeful of victory.

Sorry - not meaning to offend, but I've never understood the whole "marriage is an institution" thing. No, it's not. It's a relationship between two people, which is as unique as those two people are.

We don't opt not to enter into "the institution of friendship" ever again because a friend or two let us down in the past.

I totally understand not wanting the whole big white wedding thing (we didn't - and wrote our own vows with no elements of ownership or patriarchy either) or not wanting any religious aspect, but everyone has so many choices these days.

Sorry for all the posts - I really do feel strongly about this issue but didn't mean to be tedious.....

The thought of introducing marriage for gay and heterosexual people AND civil partnerships for gay and heterosexual people is just ridiculous.

How much pandering to people's whims should the government do? .

It's pathetic it really is. The government offer cp's and marriage which both offer the same rights that most people could ever reasonably need.
I think the moaning is ridiculous: I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but by god, even I think things like the 'equal love campaign' are just beyond a joke.

A relationship is what the couple make of it: married, civilly-partnered, whatever. It's not the government's responsibility to sort out people's heads, just to provide a legal framework-which they've done. End of story.

ummamumma, would you accept it if we had one system for white people and another for people of colour? If not, then why do you think it's ok to separate people based on sexuality?

'...just to provide a legal framework...'

Not 'a' legal framework - two legal frameworks, each of which is denied to a whole bunch of people based on their sexuality. It's indefensible. We're talking about equal rights, not 'whims'. You're free to keep out of the whole 'pathetic' situation if you wish but this is really important to some people

Those legal framework are essentially exactly the same. There is no difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage. Theres just a pointless different label on them to appease bigots.

It seems foolish to deny yourself legal protections because of historic associations of marriage. And ironic. Back in the times you complain of, not so very long ago, a woman was her fathers property until she married. I doubt by remaining single you consider yourself to allying yourself with a system that makes you your fathers property. Why do hey up about the history of marriage?

Lottapianos,
please don't compare this to a race struggle, it really isn't comparable.

The fact is marriage contains consummation which can be used to make the marriage void. Silly, but true: if one spouse does not have sexual intercourse (and, yes, it must be penis in vagina sex) with the other spouse, it is grounds to make the marriage void.
By the way, this does NOT excuse rape at all. But the fact remains that if one spouse requests sex and the other cannot/ will not perform it is grounds to nullify the marriage. I said request not force.

Nobody has thought of what consummation should be for gay people. Those that drafted the civil partnership bill were not religious homophobes, they were neutral people who couldn't find an answer.
Nor could they find a gay equivalent of adultery.

So to answer your question, do I think it is discriminatory to have marriage for heterosexuals and civil partnerships for homosexuals? No.

Legal rights are provided the same for both as far as reasonably possible to do so.