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

So, in theory, if this couple win, it could be used to avoid inheritance tax because you could enter into a CP with whoever you wanted to leave your assets to?

I can't see many people doing that tbh because it is a reciprocal arrangement, so by entering a CP with a sibling, so you could inherit their wealth tax free, you would b making them your legal nok, possibly to the financial detriment of your dc.

I take their point, and that of people who would rather a civil partnership than a marriage - I even signed their petition - but I have to be honest, some of the comments I've seen around the subject seem a bit, I don't know, sulky, to me.

The gay community fought for decades for equality on this issue, and yet, not quite two years later, someone's taking it to court because same-sex partners have something opposite sex couples don't for once.

I'm aching to ask if everyone supporting them also fought for same sex couples to have the right to a marriage as well. I know that the couple leading it do, and were active in the campaigning for marriage to be open to everyone, but I've seen commentary from plenty of others that suggests they didn't and are just irked because someone has something they don't.

Then again, I'm of the opinion that the solution years ago was for everyone to have civil partnerships and leave the word 'marriage' and its history for the Churches.

YANBU.
If you want the legal protection, get married. If you don't want to call yourself wife or husband, don't. Why should time and money be squandered on an utterly pointless law to indulge this ridiculousness.

I guess if you're not a big fan of equality, and the notion that people should be treated the same regardless of sexuality then yes, it was a massive waste of time. Like votes for women and abolishing slavery, really. The courts have much more important issues to decide. Those boundary cases won't judge themselves.

The courts have much more important issues to decide. Those boundary cases won't judge themselves.

Exactly. No one should try changing anything, really, because it's just a bit attention seeking and it irritates people who have to read about it in the news.

I mean, it's not like there are other countries where there is a choice between a simple legal tie or a full wedding.

Oh, wait... No, there are. France, Netherlands, New Zealand...

Oh, and to the OP: YABU.

Courts are very well placed (perhaps too well placed) to decide for themselves what is frivolous and what is serious. They don't need our help.

Judges have the ultimate power that award of expenses is discretionary not automatic. Which (how I laugh) quite a few barrack-room lawyers only discover in court.

There was a case a few years back where a couple of squabbling neighbours took a dispute all the way to the high court. The judge ruled in law, but to demonstrate his ("the courts") disapproval, he ruled each side should pay their own costs. A decision I believe the supreme court upheld.

One thing seems to escape a lot of people, and that is - by definition - going to law is a last resort. Courts take a very dim view of people who don't respect that.

Please can we have a legal contract that confers a range of mutual rights on us, protects our children and allows us to demonstrate our commitment to each other?

Certainly, just sign here. It's called marriage.

No, No, No, No, No. We want a legal contract that confers a range of mutual rights on us, protects our children and allows us to demonstrate our commitment to each other but called something different. And we want you and the legal system to go to the time, trouble and cost simply to give us exactly the same as what the other thing does only called something different.

I'm trying and failing to see any harm in extending c.p. to opposite-sex couples - but by legislation, which can sort out the details, not by judicial decision.

They are different. For a start doesn't marriage have to promise "til death do us part and forsaking all others"? - Don't know - I haven't done it.

I want a legal partnership - a CP - not a marriage.

A test case is often how we make sure the law is fit for purpose.

All I could think when I read about this was "don't you have anything better to do with your time"?

I found this which apparently explains the differences (I haven't read it as I can't open it on my computer but would love to know the key differences if anyone feels inclined to summarise for me).

www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

BlueJug Those words are only used in church.

But marriage in the register office was (before same-sex marriage) described as "the union of a man and a woman for life to the exclusion of all others" which is the same thing in the prosaic language of a nineteenth-century judge instead of the rather finer language of a sixteenth-century clergyman.

hedgehogsdontbite The most remarkable difference is that mothers' names are included on a cp certificate!

You don't have to make your address public when you give notice of c.p.

Adultery is not a ground for dissolving a c.p. as it is for marriage.

There are transitional (and I think actuarial) differences for pension purposes; they will "unwind" as those affected die off.

But this is a ground for nullity of a c.p. as it is for marriage:

The respondent was pregnant at the time of the civil partnership formation by some person other than the applicant.

I'm struggling to see what the last seven words add. If the respondent was pregnant when she formed the c.p. it must have been by some third party, or am I missing something?

Thank you. That's interesting and bizarre at the same time.

I can see why all three of those differences could be very important to some people.

The pregnant by someone else is definitely a 'huh?' moment.

YANBU OP

My stance on this is that there should just be ONE THING.

It was ridiculous to have there be two things in the first place.

Allow me to turn what you've just said around, OP, and apply it to gay couples fighting for marriage equality a few years ago. You wouldn't see these comments looking out of place in the comments section of the Daily Mail.

"Please can we have a legal contract that confers a range of mutual rights on us, protects our children and allows us to demonstrate our commitment to each other?

Certainly, just sign here. It's called civil partnership.

No, No, No, No, No. We want a legal contract that confers a range of mutual rights on us, protects our children and allows us to demonstrate our commitment to each other but called something different. And we want you and the legal system to go to the time, trouble and cost simply to give us exactly the same as what the other thing does only called something different."

Lots of people called them whining timewasters. I didn't see what the big deal was with allowing gay couples to marry, and I don't see what the big deal is now with allowing straight couples to enter into a civil partnership.

It was ridiculous to have there be two things in the first place.

That I definitely agree with. It was terrible that it was not considered acceptable to simply allow same-sex marriage.

We want a legal contract that confers a range of mutual rights on us, protects our children and allows us to demonstrate our commitment to each other

Actually, no. I don't want to "demonstrate our commitment to each other". In actual fact, that is one of the main aspects of marriage I dislike. What I would like to do is to declare that my partner, the person I have chosen to buy a house with, sign my life insurance over, and would prefer to make decisions about my care if I am incapacitated, is the person who is my legal next of kin, in both the legal and non-legal sense of the word.

It would not be much time, trouble and cost. Its little more than a change in the wording of the legislation. The framework exists - it simply doesn't apply to heterosexual couples.

Yes, people who feel the same as me can get married. Many of us maybe eventually will.

But extending CPs to heterosexual couples is not a hassle. It is not time consuming, or expensive. Other countries manage it to.

Floggingmolly- totally agree with you. Nothing but attention seeking behaviour.

The situation as it stands is obviously discriminatory.

I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to open civil partnerships to heterosexual partners. I think it is probably a good idea to have a form of partnership that protects partners and children but which is less onerous than marriage.

My marriage was for purely administrative purposes (to give DH certain rights as an immigrant living in france), we'd have opted for a civil partnership if it had existed then.

Less onerous than marriage...

What's less onerous than marriage?

Mistigri

I don't think it's "obviously discriminatory" at all and neither did the judge

What Thurlow said.

I don't want, actually, to make some kind of state-sanctified declaration about commitment. I certainly don't want to tangle with the dubious associations and history of marriage. I don't want to be Mrs Hisname.

But it would be useful to sort out the last of the legal stuff and inheritance tax in a manner not loaded with cultural significance.

I find it bizarre that people feel a marriage commitment is different to a cp. You are committing to your partner. Can someone who objects to marriage but is ok about a cp explain to me why they feel it's different? Surely a partnership/ relationship is what you make it in terms of equality? How does being married negate that?