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?

I agree that mother's names need to go on - it looked like the law was about the be changed but for some double-speak reason the government changed their minds.

The other change to marriage I would like to see is for marriage in CofE to be the same as marriage in any other place in terms of the removal of banns and the requirement for a registrar and register of marriages.

I've just checked my marriage certificate, I was married in Gretna & both mine and my husband's mothers are in there, including occupation.

So, go to Scotland and have a civil ceremony.

Job done.

OddBoots I agree with your second point in theory . . . but why bother? The Anglican cleric doubles as the Registrar. The marriage gets registered in the same way. In many other places of worship although the parties have to give notice to the Registrar the celebrant can register the marriage as in the C of E.

A bigger problem is the number of "marriages" (mostly Islamic, a few Hindu, and a handful Jewish) which take place with no notice beforehand and no registration afterwards and which are not even void marriages, but non-marriages, creating no legal rights or obligations, in life, on break-up, or no death. But that's a whole otehr issue.

MangoMoon At one stage it appeared possible that Scotland would get same-sex marriage before England - in the end it was the other way round - and some enterprising type was going to offer ceremonies where you went and trade as Gretna Pink

I am in the same situation as OP. In France a co-habiting opposite sex couple can register in their local area as being together so they get legal protection and rights but are not married. This is what I would like - and my view is that CP does this. It's not marriage but there is a legal protection for both parties. There have been numerous reports over the years from bodies such as the Law Commission about taking action to protect, mainly women, who mistakenly believe they have rights under a common law marriage. Many people don't want to be married, for a myriad of reasons, but do want the legal protection and financial benefits.

In France a co-habiting opposite sex couple can register in their local area as being together so they get legal protection and rights but are not married.

And then they walk over into the border into Italy, and find their PACS isn't worth the paper it's written on.

europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/family/couple/registered-partners/index_en.htm

FFS. Marriage is a patriarchal institution that was about MEN PASSING ON OWNERSHIP OF WOMEN - from father to husband. Some of us understnad and care about history.

(Disclaimer: I am a lesbian with no desire to have anything to do with an oppressive institution like marriage, and who supports heterosexual women like OP in wishing to assure legal rights, e.g. around inheritance, for her chosen partner without her having to take on the historically freighted, heteronormative identity of "wife". )

It is probably more likely that CP's will be got rid of for same sex couples than CP's introduced for heterosexual couples though, as I can't see the point of a 'not quite marriage' when marriage is now available.

I don't see why any two consenting adults who require the legal status of partnership and the inheritance rights that that would confer are not able to do that via a civil partnership . I can envisage several examples of why a "marriage" would not in any way shape or form be a suitable alternative.

YANBU

Dottybuttons

So OP you don't want a marriage due to repressive traditions but are quite happy to have a CP despite it marginalising same sex couples?

I think (correct me if I'm wrong OP), that this is what OP is saying.
The law has, at last, changed so same sex couples have the freedom to marry, if this is more in line with their personal beliefs than a CP.
Or if they prefer, they can still choose to have a CP.
OP, having strong views against traditional marriage, would like the freedom to also choose the alternative option to marriage for herself and her DP.

OP has a valid point, and I'm surprised she has had such a kicking from people who appear to find her views threatening.

The law as it stands clearly discriminates against hetero couples. Same sex couples seeking to formalise their relationship can choose between CP and marriage. Hetero couples can't. That is discrimination, full stop.

CP was introduced by the Labour govt as a fudge because they wanted to give same-sex couples equality but Blair, a very religious man married to a Catholic, didn't want to offend his fellow God botherers.

The coalition govt then introduced full gay marriage, creating the current anomalous situation.

CP should be available to everyone or it should be abolished. Then we could have equality for everyone.

FGS I watched that couple with the kid being interviewed on TV a few months back about wanting a civil partnership. Thought they needed to nip out and buy a grip and a life.

Civil partnerships were discriminatory, gay marriage should have been legalised from the beginning.

YANBU.

Marriage was formed as a legal exchange of goods (women).

You have to use the words wife and husband. www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/vows-and-promises-your-wedding

So the woman has to have a husband. Husband- head of the household. Also used for the term 'husbandry', as in care of animals.

Excuse me????!

Also, the very certificate you get given only lists your father, and not mother. Yes, because women don't need recording, really. Only men count.

I'm sorry, I believe those who think marriage is not a patriarchal institution, a hangover from the days before women's lib, are deluding themselves. Usually because they have a faux romantic idea about it all.

The idea of marriage makes me feel a bit sick, actually, and not something I could bring myself to be part of.

I do feel that as an option of legal commitment and certification of long term relationships is offered to homosexual couples, it is only right, and equal, to offer this to heterosexual couples.

Many other countries have a form of registration of long term heterosexual relationships, that is not marriage.

You can get around the not having mothers mentioned on marriage certificate by having them as your witnesses.

Civil partnerships were discriminatory. But a path on the way to equality.

Marriage was discriminatory. But a leftover from institutionalised discrimination against women.

Can you not see why one 'institution' would appeal more than the other, for a feminist?

OP- The way this crazy world is going, can't you just declare you 'feel like a man', and get a civil partnership that way?

I'm sure you can 'feel like a woman' again after, should you choose.

I've just checked my marriage certificate and, like MangoMoon, both our mothers and their occupations are on it. We went to the registry office, said the basic minimum legal stuff, signed the register and that was it. No religion, no missing mothers, no being forced to give up my name, no nothing. We are exactly as we were just now we both have legal security. Sometimes you have to leave medieval history in the past.

FlyingElbows, are you in England?

In England, the basic minimum stuff is discriminatory.

In a civil marriage ceremony does the celebrant say 'I now pronounce you husband and wife' and 'you now may kiss the bride'?

Yes.

www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/wedding_scripts.pdf

In England, the words husband and/or wife are obligatory, whether same-sex or opposite sex marriage.

CP declares you partners:
www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/civil_partnership_scripts-2.pdf

I would much rather be a partner, than a wife. I will not have a husband. Pigs need husbandry, I don't.

I married my husband in 2000, after 7 years together and two small children. We had a civil ceremony, didn't exchange rings and I didn't change my name. It was a quite a clinical and brief ceremony which was fine with us. The children were already double-barreled. I have never use 'Mrs' as my title and never will.

How is that different from a civil partnership?

I do entirely see where people are coming from about the outdated traditions but I think energy is better spent 'fixing' marriage than getting a new (for het couples) form of partnership. I like the idea of making marriage fair and equal, then other countries that are even more behind than us will have to accept our marriages whereas they could just choose not to recognise a CP.

(BoGrainger, my brother got married a few months ago and they didn't say 'kiss the bride', it was 'you may now kiss' - when I married 18 years ago we didn't have the kiss bit at all, it is optional).

Use of the (rooted in discrimination) words 'husband'and 'wife' in the ceremony.

The sex discrimination on the certificate.

The patriarchal history behind marriage.

Those are the differences.

YANBU. CP and marriage aren't quite the same thing legally, there are some small distinctions, and there'll be some people for whom that's relevant. The unavailability of CP for straight couples isn't equality under the law either, and as the marvellous Peter Tatchell poins out, that's not acceptable.

I'm married, but I've no problem with people who don't want to enter into the institution trying to create an alternative one. That's fine. Just gives people more choice. The problem comes when people who aren't married and don't want to be so decide cohabitants should automatically acquire the same legal and financial ramifications as marriage after a certain period of time living together: I believe they have something similar in Australia. Thus shitting on people who want to live together but deliberately avoid marriage because of the legal and financial implications: they're then basically forced to choose between living as they like and managing their affairs as they like, because other people want the side effects of marriage but are far too special to enter into an actual ceremony. Whereas people who don't want to get married and campaign for CP aren't taking choice away from anyone else.

I will say though, OP, that CP isn't coming in any time soon. You mention that you'd like the legal side of marriage. If it's in any way important and beneficial to you, you'd be a fucking idiot cutting your nose off to spite your face not doing it. Get married, don't tell anyone, campaign hard for CP.

OP- get married in Scotland. You don't have to have a husband, or be a wife there, you can be partners. Plus mothers are on the certificate.

So, yes, still marriage, and you're buying in to an historically distasteful tradition, but it does what you need it to do legally, without the stuff that really sticks in the throat?