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

I've just discovered that Rebecca Steinfeld is actually Dr Steinfeld whose area of expertise is biopolitics, gender and feminism. I'm not surprised she's fighting this.

We would have done a CP had they been available to us, we got married because the TA was sending DH to Afghanistan and he wanted me to be his next of kin. Zero interest in name changing, white dresses or some dog and pony show of a reception.

I reconciled myself by thinking that people of all different faiths and beliefs have civil marriage ceremonies and define their own view of marriage so why shouldn't a couple of secular humanist feminists?

Also if we were that bothered about the shit bits of marriage we could have kept our gobs shut that we had actually done it

YANBU So many problems in the World. This is their biggest issue? I can't believe I am reading up thread that this injustice compares to slavery or votes for women. Really?
The Government should just abolish CP for same sex couples and close down the argument. There is no meaningful distinction between CP and Civil marriages. Just get over yourself.

I just want the legal side taken care of, I want it so when one of us pops off the other is ok. That legally it's all tied up and our kids are ok.
I don't want the rest, I don't want to be a wife, I don't want the "until death do us part", I don't want the ceremony, I don't want a wedding, I don't want a marriage, I don't want his name. He doesn't have half to take and neither do I!

Completely agree with the comments about marriage being an institution with a lot of negative connotations. My dh and I would have had a cp if we could have. I don't see any reason to limit it to same sex couples.

I also agree that expanding cp leaves open prospects like allowing siblings and polyamourous people to have their relationships recognised.

Register office weddings can be over in minutes. I know people that have gone and done it in jeans, in their lunch hours, and then gone back to their desk. It only needs formality and ceremony if YOU want it. You don't have to be Mrs. You don't have to change your name. I didn't.

They certainly should close up the differences between marriage and civil partnerships - eg if mothers profession is not on the marriage certificate, they need to update the certificates! (I thought they were planning to do this anyway - genealogists have been lobbying for it to happen, certainly).

Once those things are changed, what real difference between marriage and civil partnership except in people's minds? To me, a civil marriage with no religious content in a register office has no connotations of patriarchy, to others it evidently still does.

One thing I would like to lobby for is for humanist celebrants to be able to conduct civil weddings - in England and Wales (as far as I know), if you want a humanist ceremony you still have to have the register office official ceremony too. I didn't see the point of having two ceremonies so we just had the basic register office do, but if I could have had a humanist wedding, I would have loved that.

Look, if you see no difference, fine. Plenty of us do.

But then I - and I suspect others on this thread - am a shock horror feminist who's into gender politics.

YANBU.

Well I'd say I was a feminist tbh.

I think some on here seem to be seeing marriage as having to have a wedding which it's not. You could wear a big white dress and have a cp, so that argument is not really relevant.

So other than only father's name on marriage certificate, which hardly effects your relationship, why else do people object to marriage over cp?

What do "negative connotations" matter? Worrying about the "negative connotations" is just allowing yourself to be led by what you think other people will think about you if you marry, which is strange and sad.
Stripped down, a civil marriage ceremony is a simple legal process that joins a couple in law, confers next of kin status and other protections on them. So is a civil partnership which, as we know, was set up as a semantic work-around at a a time when marriage for same sex couples was considered a step too far.

Being married does not require:
A "wedding"
A change of name
A "dog and pony show"
The use of the terms "husband" and "wife" (outside of the ceremony, at least, maybe not even then)
A big white dress
Etc.

I agree with the poster who said there is a no meaningful difference between a civil marriage and a civil partnership. If you still see differences, that's your own problem and not something that anyone else's time or money should be wasted on.

I'm not confusing it with having a wedding and I doubt if many others are.

to be married - in church or in a civil ceremony you make vows

to enter a civil partnership you don't - you sign a legal document and that is ALL

These people are asking to have the same legal rights as married people without being married

no one should be forced into a marriage to protect their legal rights - they should be able to sign the paper and it's done - with no vows or standing in front of a registrar

YABU

People on this thread are implying (I believe - please correct me if I'm wrong) that you can enter into a civil partnership with a family member, is that true?
If it is, and if it's a way round various inheritance tax issues or whatever, has it already happened? Because intensively cp to heterosexual couples won't make it more common surely?

Unless I'm mistaken, the various protections are available without being married and so without the ceremony. They just involve signing several bits of paper (I.e. Making a vow in writing, rather than verbally as well as in writing) so marrying is simpler, for most folk who can stomach the "negative connotations".

Ps. I also insider myself a feminist.

People on this thread are implying (I believe - please correct me if I'm wrong) that you can enter into a civil partnership with a family member, is that true?

I mentioned it. I don't believe it's allowed but I think it should be.

yabu

why not. how does it hurt anyone. they should both be available for all couples.

Ah thank you hedgehogs!

Yanbu. I really don't agree with all the objections to marriage because of it's historical baggage. No one refuses to join a trade union because they used to be misogynistic. All institutions used to be sexist and patriarchal because society was. It doesn't mean they are now ( or at least no more than general society is now ) and it certainly doesn't mean your individual marriage needs to be. Why allow all other institutions be accepted for how they are now, but not marriage?

YABU.

I dont want to get married, I want a civil partnership.

One is a remnant of a patriarchal institution with a layer of religious tradition on top (yes, even the registry office ceremony is based on this), and the other is a modern construction predicated on equality.