to want a civil partnership rather than a marriage?

[victoriousponge]

I'm in a happy, committed relationship. We were talking recently about the future, and are in agreement that marriage is not for us. However, if the option were available, we would enter into a civil partnership, but legally (as we are not a same sex couple) this is not an option.

I know that there is a challenge to this potentially going to the ECHR (although not sure what effect Brexit, if it happens, will have on that) but in the meantime AIBU to want this?

Dotty, my view is that it doesn't marginalise same sex couples. I appreciate it could be said that at the outset, it was an 'instead of' option; but clearly many same sex couples consider it as valid as/preferable to marriage, as many are still in civil partnerships (entered into prior to the legalisation of same sex marriage) and have not chosen to marry instead; also others are still now entering into CP's every year - even though marriage is an option. So clearly those couples see it as a preferable option, not a lesser one.

Well you're clearly much brighter than me or have an agenda

Yes, the omission of mother's details on the form in some of the home nations on UK (it goes on in Scotland, does it not) has been a source of vexation to genealogists for years and has been a little more headline grabbing of late.

And of course I'm sure OP will weigh it up. It may be a showstopper for some.

It is however one item on the paperwork recording the fact of marriage, and I was thinking more of the actual legal status, and how that is related to the sex of those contracting the legal partnership (both of whom are required to give same family information)

My dad did walk me down the aisle Matt (love the username btw). You couldn't meet a less oppressive bloke than my dad. It really was just a nice thing, to have the company ( I was nervous).

I was raised to take bugger all notice of people who would take that shit seriously.

Nicely done, Mutton.

I have no idea how bright you are, so couldn't comment on that.

But I have posted my 'agenda' aka my point of view.

I still have no idea why the idea that a CP could be universally available in the UK is such a bad thing! Why so many posters are so against the idea, quite so aggressively!

How odd. I'm pretty sure I've been introduced to a civil partnered couple who used husband to describe their relationship. It seems the obvious word.

What is it about marriage you object to? It can be civil (so religion free), no one will force you to change your name or title, and if the terms husband and wife offend you feel free to opt for the gender neutral spouse or simply partner.

Well, you have two choices. #1 Campaign, agitate, lobby for a change in the law and then enter into a civil partnership with your OH. #2 Get married.

Not against Cp at all, just have no idea why a marriage wouldn't work and n this situation.

I have a husband, he has a wife, we have sons, (because they are male).

I also earn more than he does, we respect one another, and because of my workload he does significantly more around the house (as do our sons).

I am in no way downtrodden or a chattel. In fact I'm very much a feminist. But this seems like nonsense to me, so if someone could explain it I'd appreciate it (rather than telling me it obvious).

OP a PP has posted a list of the differences between marriage and CP, there are legal differences.
It's not a 'could have been seen as an instead of option' it bloody well was.
Bluntly, because my Partner and I both have a fanny we were not worthy of marriage. We were other'd.

Marriage is not an equal concept, it was never intended to be. We could choose to ignore that, but I'd far rather a CP.

We will be taking steps to join the campaigns which already exist. We certainly won't be getting married.

Marriage is between two people, so it's as equal as you make it. Ffs

There are two ways of looking at it, Mutton.

Dotty has one, I have another. We both see the 'othering' the CP, as it was done, caused. Because of her experience she has cause to dislike it. Because of my experience I have cause to dislike it, but to want it to stay, but to be extended, changed.

Marriage comes with its own history, lots of patriarchal baggage. I wanted to be recognised as DHs life partner, to have a set of legal protections, etc. The only way could/can get that is via marriage. The same issue as Dotty has/had but from a different perspective.

Now that CP exist I would want it to be more inclusive, to remove it 'othering' and to strengthen its legalities - not to make it the same as marriage though, but to make it a new and wholly equal relationship, built for a more enlightened and inclusive society.

That's all! Yet it seems to be too much to as for.

Campaign, agitate, lobby for a change in the law and then enter into a civil partnership with your OH

More accurately, campaign, agitate, lobby for a change in the law and then fume on forums for the next twenty years. No-one is going to revisit this stuff, particularly after most western countries have normalised same-sex marriage. Civil partnerships were a legislative hack because Labour didn't have the nerve to upset the churches (although they tried to sabotage CP as well, and only claimed to be in favour of CPs later when SSM was on the table); the passage of a few years plus Dave not genuflecting to men in silly hats meant that the issue was resolved by the availability of same-sex marriages. Dead issue. No-one is going to waste spend legislative time on this.

I agree with the OP. I have had a DP for years and don't want a DH. We are not religious, we do not want a ceremony and we do not want to sign a certificate with only our fathers' occupations on it. I would very happily walk into a registry office and sign something that legally protected me and my partner. The words marriage, husband and wife do have different connotations for me to partnership and partner. I understand that some people feel this is quibbling, but I assume that they are happily married and therefore had no problems with the idea!

So you dont want to be called a wife, you want your mum's name on the wedding certificate, you want it to be called a civil partnership. Other than that you are happy the rights and obligations a civil marriage confers?

And you want parliamentary time wasted to change the law to achieve this?

But you're all discussing what marriage used to stand for, when it had to be in a church and a religious service.

It's changed recently, (and it is only in the last 30 years or so), but itsn't the same institution. I think anyone who is a LTR who hasn't protected themselves or their partner by legalising the relationship is not 100% committed.

I care what happens when I'm not here to make sure they are okay, my husband feels the same way.

If a political point is more important to you then crack on, but I think your values are skewed.

BatSegundo but you can just walk into a register office and make a statement then sign the register.

You have to prove who you are, give notice, say the formal form of words, declare that you are free to go through the process because it offers so much in the way of rights:

• you can only be committed to one person at a time
• the commitment exists until it is legally dissolved
• both people have to be aware that they are making this exclusive commitment
• you have witnesses to confirm that the commitment was made

If you want less commitment then just go to the solicitors and sort out wills etc.

Please explain what isn't equal about marriage.
I get that some of the history was unequal, but now, under the current law, what is it that is unequal?
You could just get married in Scotland or another country where they have different rules about whose names are on the records.

I think the sensitivity around this is that people who are married may well feel that campaigns like this are suggesting that there are unpleasant and repressive features that they don't recognise and actively reject as parts of their own relationships. The promotion of CPs is in conflict with the view that marriages have evolved beyond their origins and have a very different meaning these days.

Exactly odd boots

You could be right Boots.

That would explain the more aggressive tones of some of those against the idea!

Yes, when we're in a marriage of equals, someone telling us that we aren't is a bit rude.

But who's been aggressive? I haven't seen it on this thread.

Marriage is not an equal concept

Nonsense.
It is whatever you and your partner choose it to be.

It's the same sort of thing as 'what about racism against white people!'

It's not fair that 'the gays' have got something that we haven't! It's discriminating against me because I'm straight!'

Temper temper, stamp stamp, bleat bleat.

Get over yourself and either get married or don't, but don't desperately try to find a convoluted way to claim discrimination.

Brexit has nothing to do with it. The European Court of Human Rights is an emanation of the Council of Europe which is older than and bigger than the EU. It includes some none-EU counties such as Russia, Switzerland, Albania, Iceland and Norway.

As for the main issue: the challenge is in the English courts and I would not give it a chance. Opposite-sex couples are going to be faced with the choice of marriage or nothing for the foreseeable future. Take it or leave it. And if you take it your marriage can be as equal as the two of you care to make it.

both of us genuinely didn't see a Tory government introducing same sex marriage

Who the hell did? Life is full of little surprises and this was one of them.

In fairness to Blair, CP was a considerable leap forward compared with the nothing that was there before and probably all that could be done at the time. It was left for Dave to finish the job, and he did.

It remains ridiculous that the names of the mothers of parties to a marriage are not recorded on the certificate - in Scotland I believe they are, in NI I believe not, in Wales not unless it has changed under devolution. That could be corrected in the next Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Of course only prospectively, for marriages occurring after the change comes into force.