To think that this was the most pointless legal case of all time

[DreamingofSummer]

Two heterosexuals wasting time, money and effort pushing for a civil partnership.

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/29/heterosexual-couple-civil-partnership-high-court-battle-lose#comment-67695671

YABU

I believe that marriage should be open to any two consenting adults, regardless of their sex.

Therefore why should civil partnerships be any different?

I think civil partnership should be available to anyone who wants legal recognition of their partnership and the protection that brings. By this I mean not just lovers, eg siblings who live together and financially support each other.

Attention seeking in it's purest form. Pair of saddos.

It's an important issue. At the moment, there's no way of legally protecting a partnership if you can't marry or civil partnership. So siblings can't protect tenancies, have to pay death duties etc.

How different would or be to pop into a registrars and just sign a wedding certificate? If you want to protect your assets then get your Will and powers of attorney sorted.

I think they have a civil partnership in France don't they?

Yanbu

I agree with pp saying they're giant attention seekers. Nobody has to get married and certainly nobody has to do so in a religious way. In no way are same-sex couples getting something special in this deal!

I personally think that civil partnerships should be totally abolished now that marriage is legal for everybody. All civil partnerships should be converted to marriages automatically and the status of being in a civil partnership ended. It should be equal for all including heterosexuals and that means everybody having the same options.

I don't think that having tandem civils and marriages for everybody is an option. Because all the way through the movement for equal gay partnership rights it was promised that giving equal rights to gay couples would not be used to undermine marriage. Allowing marriages to be replaced by civil partnerships replaces and undermines marriage. This is not something that gay people either wanted, asked for or campaigned for, so I am very, very against legislation which was done in goodwill for them being used to undermine marriage via the back door.

Same for everybody and that is marriage I think. Civil partnerships have served there purpose (getting around those who were opposed to actual gay marriage) and they should go now.

I don't really want to see partnerships reduced to a temporary legal registration being rubber stamped with no pretence of real commitment for either gay or straight people.

I agree that civil partnerships should be phased out not that both homosexual and heterosexual couples can be married. Seems no point in continuing with CPs.

The point about siblings can be sorted out by other forms of legal agreement.

These two are just attention seekers. The only benficiaries are the lawyers.

I personally think that civil partnerships should be totally abolished now that marriage is legal for everybody. All civil partnerships should be converted to marriages automatically and the status of being in a civil partnership ended.

I don't think that's on. You've entered into one sort of contract to have it changed to another type without your consent doesn't seem fair.

legislation which was done in goodwill for them being used to undermine marriage via the back door.

Do you realise how patronising that sounds. Like the lovely thoughtful straights gave the gays something a bit like marriage for them to use.

Yanbu. It's a waste of time, money and effort. Attention seeking behaviour.

Yabu
I have no desire to be married, no desire to be a wife or have a husband, but I'd happily sign up for a civil partnership. The legal side sorted as couples of the same sex can.

That's a good point Compost. Perhaps people who objected could be exempted and remain in civil partnerships? But going forward just marriage for all new partnerships registered.

Exactly what catphrase said. Would much prefer to be a partner rather than a wife.

YABU.

Do you think anyone who takes anything like this to court are attention seekers?

There are subtle differences between CPs and marriage. I'm biased, as I am one of those 'attention seeking, time wasting' hetrosexuals who would far rather enter a CP than a marriage.

But there is a serious point underneath this, and that is that homosexual couples can currently choose between two different forms of marriage/legal joining, and hetrosexual couples cannot.

Perhaps the answer is to abolish CPs - though what about all the thousands of people who are currently in a CP? Should they be made to convert to a marriage?

One very interesting point is that in 2014 1,683 same-sex couples chose a civil partnership over a marriage. The introduction of same-sex marriage has not put a complete stop of CPs. Some couples still prefer it.

I think it is grossly unfair that same-sex couples have a choice and hetrosexual couples don't. As a discrimination claim, there is a lot of worth to it.

Why, why, why are people who are challenging the social and legal status quo seen as time-wasting? The same arguments are being brought out again and again on these threads. "Marriage is what you make it" and all that comments to people who have a preference not to be married. Why should the onus entirely be on individuals to change, rather than to ask society to consider that society is changing, that relationships are slowly changing, that in the 21st century some people want to ask the law makers to consider other options for how couples can become legally joined?

I don't think it's patronising. It was done in goodwill because at the time it was too difficult to get around public opinion for actual gay marriage and it got round those objections. It was never done with the intention of creating a two tier system for everybody and people like this are trying to hijack it for a purpose for which it was never intended.

But yes, possibly 'done for them' was a poor choice of words and I could have put it better.

yabu, I would much prefer a civil partnership, it comes without a lot of the negative associations of marriage. But we would like to formalize our relationship and have legal protection.

Also to marry (even in a registry office) you need to exchange vows infront of witnesses, something I and my parent would not be very comfortable doing. In a civil partnership you can just sign and it's done.

Agree Op, waste of time. Seemed like making a point for making a point's sake imo

Ah fair point bill apologies if I was a bit testy.

I'd say it was done to appease vocal religious groups rather than the public at large. Parliament should have told this noisy minority to fuck off at the time, but then Blair always had his tongue wedged up the arses of faith leaders.

I would much prefer a civil partnership, it comes without a lot of the negative associations of marriage.

As would I.

YANBU for once the government reasoning for not allowing this is valid.

They were told it would be a huge expensive time consuming law change to allow opposite sex couples to have a civil partnership and as it is currently likely they will be phased out in favour of just having religious or civil marriages for everyone it's a total waste of public money and time just for their point of principle.

YABU. Marriage comes with a lot of negative baggage for some people and although marriage equality will hopefully erase some of that over time, it's still there now.

Yabu. Why shouldn't straight people have the right to choose between a civil partnership and marriage?

YABU. The whole point about legalising marriage for same sex couples was they wanted equality. Now we have the situation where same sex couples get a choice but opposite sex couples don't. That's not equality. CP is not the same as marriage. I don't normally like Owen Jones, the columnist, but he wrote a good piece on this for The Guardian.

I should be able to have the same choice as same sex couples.

If DH and I were just starting out now, I'd want a civil partnership rather than a marriage. No religious connotations, no historical connotations - just a simple partnership agreement that would protect us legally and financially.

We tried our best to strip all of that out by having a civil wedding, but I'd still prefer to have none of it at all. A partnership of equals (that's what our relationship is, I'd prefer that to be reflected in the way we got married). YABU