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?

The longer I have been married the more I realise that the things people (including me!) fuss and fret about at the start really dont matter.

• nobody except the B&G really remember much about the details of the wedding itself
• name changing - I finally changed my name nearly 20 years after getting married and nobody cared one way or the other
• my marriage certificate comes out once in a blue moon, I couldnt tell you what is on it

What matters is how you live your life.

Are you sure this is the case in all other EU countries?

I suspect that "an EU country" just meant "the one the poster is in". The UK is an EU country, so something cannot be universally true for the EU but not true of the UK.

And the obvious mainland-Europe counter example is Italy, which doesn't currently (although may soon, in a diluted form) recognise any sort of same-sex partnership, and has no alternative to marriage for opposite-sex couples.

Both parents names have been on marriage certificates in Scotland since 1855.

I remember how I felt when I first read what Civil Partnerships entailed after they were first introduced - I fucking laughed. A second-best, try-not-to-offend-people-that-hate-us marriage-lite. A 'Good Effort' sticker of relationship recognition. The implication that we should be trying to buy in straight culture emulate those relationships, but also understand at every level that our relationships were lesser and not the 'real thing'. BUT LGBT people took it and ran with it, and though I never wanted one myself, those of my friends that wanted CPs made their ceremonies beautiful, and meaningful and wholly legitimate. A separate thing that's ours.

Though I understand straight people wanting civil partnership, seeing straight couples sulk over not being able to have one makes me kind of roll my eyes, I'm sorry.

This right here:
I had hoped when the whole gay marriage thing was (finally) deemed acceptable by the powers that be, that the whole marriage/partnership thing would be wholly equal, with everyone having the same choices.
There's no way to say this that doesn't come out as bitchy, because after all this time, I just have no tears to shed on the ~inequality~ faced by straight couples, especially if they're getting cross because gay people have more rights? Seriously, gay people do not have more rights.

And though I agree that CPs STILL aren't properly recognised in this country and something needs to be done, suggesting that 'improving' and legitimising civil partnerships means opening them to straight couples has fricking unfortunate implications. The reason that CPs aren't properly integrated into our society and they way people think about relationships (I filled in a form last week and CP was missing from the marital status section) is because of attitudes towards gay people. I think we need to fix that attitude, not 'fix' CPs by giving straight couples the option.

There's no way to say this that doesn't come out as bitchy, because after all this time, I just have no tears to shed on the ~inequality~ faced by straight couples, especially if they're getting cross because gay people have more rights? Seriously, gay people do not have more rights.

That is because, as seems to be the norm around here, you took that sentence out of the context within which is was written. You have scored a cheap point. A point that, if others go back to the post in which that sentence was written, they will see that I was decrying the further 'othering' of gay couples with the CP.

If you attack everyone who supports gay rights this way then you are doing a lot of damage!

Sniv

I had hoped when the whole gay marriage thing was (finally) deemed acceptable by the powers that be, that the whole marriage/partnership thing would be wholly equal, with everyone having the same choices.

There's no way to say this that doesn't come out as bitchy, because after all this time, I just have no tears to shed on the ~inequality~ faced by straight couples

That's a shame. It's a shame that you're creating a 'them' and an 'us' as opposed to saying there should be equality for humans.

Whilst I think the OP premise is pretty deluded, she does have a point that there is an inequality, at least in the options available to homeo / hetero sexuals.

is because of attitudes towards gay people.

You (sadly) can't change that. Even Blair didn't introduce thought crime. What you can do is make discrimination illegal and part of that is absolute equality. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

We had a civil wedding ceremony, no religion at all.

Indeed, and when we got married in a hotel the Registrar was careful to let us know that we couldn't by law have anything at all with religious overtones at a Civil Service - so no singing Ave Maria, having prayers to any faith/God or readings from the Bible.

she does have a point that there is an inequality, at least in the options available to homeo / hetero sexuals.

But an inequality that has no practical consequences. Legislators are concerned about discrimination that has actual, material impact on people. Less so about arguments of "principle" and "history" and so on. You might think that arguments about what is written on marriage certificates are compelling and irresistible: they aren't. A political party which spent time on this would just look self-indulgent and metropolitan, particularly as I'd be willing to bet that this issue is disproportionately of interest amongst relatively well-educated and affluent Londoners.

What gnome said about the civil marriage being less than 2 min, no saying I do and no words you don't want.
Our vicar does not say "you may kiss the bride" instead he send the couple to the side room for some privacy and a moment to themselves.

Registry office marriage in Scotland, gives you your mums name on certificate, no husband/wife words/boring job done legally.

Yes marriage used to be different meaning hundreds of years ago, but I am clever enough to see that after 10 years of living together with myself as the main earner keeping my surname I wasn't entering into that. And if my DH ( I like the term husband) had thought that - he wouldn't have lasted very long!

no words you don't want. except, as others have pointed out - husband and wife...

You may indeed be clever enough to see many things... but that doesn't mean that things other people are clever enough to see are inconsequential!

I'm just coming up with a resounding WHY DOES IT MATTER?! Get married and enjoy the rights or don't get married and protect your precious -and ridiculous- views.

If you attack everyone who supports gay rights this way then you are doing a lot of damage!
Oh, come off it. Have I shaken your support for gay rights?

I wasn't trying to 'score a point' against you or anyone else. I was responding to a statement that implied that relationship inequality is now stacked against straight people. I was responding to statements that imply that in order to be fully recognised and legitimate, CPs need to be opened to straight people. Both of those statements caused me a bit of (mild!) personal offence. Both are attitudes I will address whenever I see them (even if they apparently come from someone who 'supports gay rights'), because gay rights are not some abstract thing for me; they affect my life.

Text is text, I don't know what you mean, just what you wrote. If it looks bad out of context, then that's literally how someone else might read it in context.

To turn your statement back at you, if you attack every gay person whose toes you tread on you might be doing some damage yourself.

That's a shame. It's a shame that you're creating a 'them' and an 'us' as opposed to saying there should be equality for humans.
perhaps gay people are the prejudiced ones??!? I'm not even going to respond to this ridiculous, tired old chestnut.

I was responding to a statement that implied that relationship inequality is now stacked against straight people. which implication, as I am trying to point out, is only there because have taken that sentence out of its context. Your point about text being text is a trite cop out too. You have stripped out one part of it to be able to make it say what you want... that is not text being text, that is a deliberate action you have taken.

^Both are attitudes I will address whenever I see them* Great! But don't be so eager to see them that you manufacture them and impute them to people who have spent time saying that they do not hold them.

To turn your statement back at you, if you attack every gay person whose toes you tread on you might be doing some damage yourself. So sad that you had to read anything into my posts that felt like an attack - it was your misunderstanding, not my point of view.

I get it, OP. My DP feels as you do. I don't feel quite as strongly, but I understand where he (and you) are coming from. I also come from an EU country where both straight and gay couples can choose either a civil partnership or a traditional marriage (a civil one, at that, as religious weddings hold no legal standing where I come from - if you want to marry in a church, what you do is have a civil ceremony and then go to church for a blessing). I don't see what the harm in opening up civil partnerships to straight couples would be. If you don't want one, don't have one.

Nah, Blanche, I read your whole post and it genuinely seemed to me to contain a bullshit statement about relationship inequality for straight people. Of course I didn't quote the whole post, who does that? It reads the same to me, in context or out of context. If that's not what you meant, no harm no foul; it is what you wrote though.

Sniv I spit as hard at the mention of Blair as I do at that of Cameron (for different but overlapping reasons) but credit where it is due. CP was a massive step forward and the best that could be done in the climate of the time. Just like the Act of 1967 with all its limitations made possible all that has been done since, CP made possible SSM - and for a mainly Conservative government. Cameron finishing the job (for E and W) is like a child sitting on father's shoulders and saying Now I am taller than Daddy or rather it would be if DC did not acknowledge that Blair broke the ground.

Put mothers' names on certificates, if only to help future genealogists, bring SSM to NI if possible. Job done.

Sounds to me as though you don't really want to cement your relationship at all and you are using any excuse possible.

Just get out now and find yourself someone of the same sex then you can have a Civil Partnership....sorted.

But an inequality that has no practical consequences. Legislators are concerned about discrimination that has actual, material impact on people. Less so about arguments of "principle" and "history" and so on.

You could have said the same before same-sex marriage became legally recognised.

In fact, one judge even remarked that in the eyes of the law there is no material difference between a CP and marriage, during that case where a Christian hotel-owning couple had refused a double bed to a gay couple with a CP, as such beds were reserved for married couples only.

So principle and perception can play a part, but there would probably have to be more of a call than perhaps there currently is, for opposite-sex CPs.

Yes marriage used to be different meaning hundreds of years ago, but I am clever enough to see that after 10 years of living together with myself as the main earner keeping my surname I wasn't entering into that. And if my DH ( I like the term husband) had thought that - he wouldn't have lasted very long!

I've read that some of the attitudes that motivated the introduction of rape laws back in history, were not ones perhaps overly concerned about women but more about protecting a husband's property. This could could be nonsense of course, but even if for the sake of argument it was true, what does it matter what something's origins were, or what historical attitudes towards it were. Matters only what we make of it today.

Maybe there should ONLY be CPs? And then anyone who wanted to change their name/be called Mrs/have a husband/be given away/wear a wedding ring etc could then go through a wedding ceremony and be deemed to be in a 'marriage'. This could only take place after a certain number of years of being in a happy CP.

Who could I float this idea to?

Nah, Blanche, I read your whole post and it genuinely seemed to me to contain a bullshit statement about relationship inequality for straight people. Of course I didn't quote the whole post, who does that? It reads the same to me, in context or out of context. If that's not what you meant, no harm no foul; it is what you wrote though Bollocks!

I clearly wrote that the CP was an ill thought pile of shite that caused a lot of 'othering' for gay couples. I then added that, for personal reasons that had nothing to do with that, I think that a properly thought out CP would be a good thing for everyone.

There is harm, I cry foul... not because you misunderstood me, which is easy enough to do with fora, but because you tried to insist you were right in your interpretation of what I thought, my attitude. And are still doing so.

Blanche There is harm? These few posts have harmed you? Get a grip...

Again to turn your own statement back at you, you've also insisted that you are right in your interpretation of what I thought and my attitude (that I'm deliberately looking to manufacture allegations against people, etc). You haven't harmed me. I've just chalked you up as being uber defensive and a bit daft tbh.

Yes, well... never mind. If you want to be right, be my guest.

If you want to continue turning things, you go right ahead!

I don't know if this has already been posted, re CPs in Europe, but in the Netherlands, France, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, Heterosexual couples can have a Civil Partnership.

Of the twelve countries in Europe that allow same-sex couples to marry, the UK is the only place, in which opposite-sex couples have only one option (marriage) while same-sex couples have two (marriage and civil partnerships).