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?

So for everyone offering OP a , I hope you have enough to go round the continent

I agree with you OP.

Except NI Violet

Well it's nice to know not everyone thinks it's completely unreasonable.

Interesting also that other EU countries have civil partnerships for both same sex and opposite sex couples. I hadn't realised that.

I am entirely committed to my partner, and would willingly enter into a CP, but I don't want to marry, and he feels similarly that marriage is a less appealing prospect than a CP.

Whether in years to come, if CP is clearly never going to be extended, we change our minds and decide maybe we could do the Scottish version rather than nothing, we'll have to wait and see.

victorious I believe in Ireland CPs are no longer available for gay couples now that we have gay marriage. So the existing CPs are still valid but no new ones to be done. That's what they were planning anyway.

The ONS published figures for 2014 (the latest for which data is available) showing that the number of civil partnerships formed in England and Wales in 2014 dropped by 70% compared to 2013.

It will be interesting to see the figures for 2015 and 2016 - I suspect that the number of new civil partnerships formed will become vanishingly small. It does seem strange to think that civil partnerships might become the preserve of heterosexual couples (should they ever be allowed to form a cp) as gay couples choose to marry rather than form a civil partnership.

OP in the mean time please look at the protections available to you without getting married. At the moment as far as the state is concerned your relationship doesnt exist, you are simply two people sharing a letterbox.

• Make wills
• Get Lasting Powers of Attorney

Basically, formalise your relationship. It is highly likely that one of you will die before the other and the surviving partner will have to sort out the mess left behind.

One thing that drives me potty on these threads is people making out that if you're married, you get a say in medical treatment more than if you're not.

People often saying "I got married because I didn't want my partner's mother making the decision to turn off the life support" are wrong.

Without a LPA (which you can get for a friend or relative, nothing to do with marriage), no one no one can consent or decline treatment for another adult. Family members (including partners) would be consulted in a 'best interests' decision, but no one other than the medical team would make the decision about life support etc.

The exception is the mental health act. There, there is a category of "nearest relative" who do have rights over sectioning (and therefore treatment) etc, but only for a mental disorder (so still not ever turning off the life support). But, guess what! As long as you and your partner have been living together as a couple long enough, you're the nearest relative, whether married or not!

So, in health, in the UK, long term partner is the same as married, and staff should treat you no differently. Even if you are married, you cannot consent or decline treatment on their behalf, you cannot ask the life support machine to be switched off, and staff should not tell you anything without checking with the patient first.

There are benefits to being married if you're the lower earning partner.

There are benefits to not being married if you are the higher earning partner.

No one is being 'irresponsible' by not being married these days. Marriage (and subsequent divorce) can be a complete disaster for a modern woman.

live , while I agree that it is the medical staff who will make the best decision for the patient, they do consider relatives wishes differently according to marital status. My mil had a stroke and was unable to communicate. She lost consciousness and died within a few days. The doctors would not discuss her condition with her partner until dh had told them it was okay to do so. When it came to making choices, it was dh's ultimate responsibility. He was asked to 'okay' the doctor's plan of action . That might have been a courtesy and the dr was going to do what they felt was best for mil regardless, but it was a courtesy not automatically given to her dp.
I wouldn't want to risk being with a man for years, then coming across a doctor who thought that no marriage = not nok.

When my uncle was sick, his doctors refused to treat his long term partner as nok. They were a gay couple and the dr insisted on discussing my uncle with my mum (his sister) until she told him otherwise. Outrageous behaviour, but it shows that marital status does matter.

I find it astonishing that anyone would feel CP was less 'oppressive' than traditional marriage, when it was expressly created to oppress same-sex couples and mark them out as less legitimate as same-sex ones - and within the last decade or so too!

I'm pretty sure the only reason CPs still exist is because it they revoked them at this stage, all CPs would effectively be annulled. Which is obviously unacceptable. They really are just a hangover from an era where it was apparently fine to regard same-sex relationships as inferior and confer lesser rights.

Civil partnerships will be phased out at some point - they were a half-way house to gay marriage. Now we have gay marriage we don't need CPs and as someone pointed out the number being entered into has fallen off significantly.

All you need to do is get married, put your certificate in a drawer and forget about it. You can call yourselves what you like (partners, whatever).

And comparing with European countries is comparing apples and pears as most European countries require a civil ceremony whereas the UK (England and Wales) does not, you can get married in church. So the laws are different in a number of ways.

I really do think that if this is all you have to worry about in life you are very lucky indeed. I'd rather people eg campaign to stop women in Northern Ireland being told what to do with their bodies than worry about what a scrap of paper says.

I''m a straight woman and would like a civil partnership too.

The whole institution of marriage is built on ideas that just don't have the same currency now as they used to – a young woman being 'given away' by an older man, a couple leaving their respective family homes to set up a new home, etc.

My DP and I would like legal protection and the same inheritance tax breaks that married couples are entitled to.

I don't appreciate the law privileging one kind of relationship over another.

And for those throwing around biscuits, calling first world problem, 'is that all you've got to worry about' etc, I do also have other/bigger things to worry about, thanks; it IS possible to have opinions and feelings on issues of different sizes and perceived weight.

I was married in a registry office. I wasn't 'given away' . We just stood in front of the registrar together. I also left from our house. You can do what you like.

"I'd rather people eg campaign to stop women in Northern Ireland being told what to do with their bodies than worry about what a scrap of paper says."

Or people could do both, as they are allowed to support more than one cause.

In countries where both same-sex and opposite-sex couples can choose between marriage and civil partnerships, there are people who choose to have civil partnerships. So even if some people think there's no difference and every marriage/partnership is totally equal no matter what is in the vows or on the certificate, it's clear that at least some people don't agree. My marriage is equal, our wedding ceremony was less so. But I didn't care. If we were getting married now, maybe we'd do it differently.

I like hearing registrars twist elements of the ceremony to make them sound like they're about romance rather than the passing of property from one man to another. Giving the bride away, for example. And we still call it that!

I think we should have either civil partnerships or marriage, and use the opportunity to change outdated rules on not having the mother's name and occupation on a marriage certificate. What happens when the children of same-sex couples get married? Do both father's names and occupations get recorded? What about lesbian parents, are they ignored completely?

I'd rather have marriage modernised (no use of husband/wife, both parents in certificate etc) than have two different systems. I feel that CP is a legacy of the days when same sex couples were not deemed to be equal to opposite sex ones and not permitted to marry, it's time to move on from that.

I'm married. My marriage is entirely equal. We both kept our own names. There is no patriarchy; there is no religion involved. We love each other and want to protect each other (legally and in all other ways) and want to present ourselves as a loving, united unit to the world. THAT is what a marriage is. I am a wife. My wife is a wife. This is 21st century marriage. There are more definitions and presentations of marriage than than the stereotype I keep see being written about here.

I had a Civil Partnership. It was converted. Why? Because a CP never gave us the same footing or the equal rights a marriage has. It never gave us the same status in society. How many times did I get to a box on a form and there was no option for my 'status'! How many times would I have to say 'this is my civil partner' (which sounded like some kind of business arrangement than anything else) if I wanted people to know we were a united and legal unit when 'wife' would have summed it up so much better.

It is my feeling CPs will be phased out. Personally I think that is a good thing. A short period in history before gay people actually got equal rights. My marriage certificate backdates my marriage to the date of my CP - which is how it should be, because that was the day our marriage really started.

I have no issue with heterosexual people wanting a CP, I just can't even begin to understand it and can't see a valid reason for it. If that's what you want - go ahead and campaign for it... but be very careful what you wish for! You sound like an intelligent, educated feminist OP, why would you ever want to buy in to something that screamed of inequality for a minority group?

I don't get why everyone finds this so difficult. Fact of the matter is that many, many marriages fail. It is more realistic to admit that you are forming a partnership (that can be dissolved formally should you need to) rather than buy into the fantasy that you are marrying for life, which then turns into a huge disappointment and stress if the relationship reaches the end of its life. It's not for everyone, no, but implying marriage is an institution that comes without huge amounts of baggage is foolish. YADNBU

I don't appreciate the law privileging one kind of relationship over another.

Privileging? Are you serious? Same-sex couple have legal privileges?! Is that what you're saying?

Despite the fact their relationships used to be illegal (and still are in many countries), despite the fact that they couldn't legally unify until a decade ago or marry until a matter of months ago... they are 'privileged' in their ability to choose to take on lesser legal union rights?

So, hypothetical example, but imagine, if during the process of allowing women the vote, the government decided that women could only vote if a man came to the house to collect their ballot paper, because it would be unacceptable for a woman to leave the house to vote. Then, when women were allowed equal voting rights, this aspect wasn't revoked because some women had come to rely on it - even though it was less fair than voting at a polling station, for obvious reasons - papers being lost/spoilt/seen etc. Then men started complaining that they couldn't vote in this way and declared that women had a 'legal privilege' because they were able to. That would be fucking insane, right? Men demanding something that was created with the intention of giving lesser rights to women, while trumpeting it as progress?

Civil partnerships aren't empowering, they're the total opposite. They will be looked back on as an embarrassing and backhanded attempt to equalise same-sex marriages without forcing people to accept them.

Sorry if that was a bit harsh. It's just a subject that really gets me going. After centuries of persecution and shame and campaigning, same-sex couples have one thing, one shitty little thing, that they can do that mixed-sex couples can't. And it's not even very good and mostly they don't even really want it. But less than 3 years after gay marriage being legalised after fucking centuries of inequality, people are moaning that it's all just so unfair.

MackerelOfFact I like your analogy but I think you are wrong about how cp will be seen in the future. It will be seen as part of a process, like the Act of 1967.

Or women getting the vote for councils in the 1880s, for Parliament if over 30 in 1918, on the same terms as men in 1928.

Or the male franchise being extended stage by stage between 1832 and 1918.

When cp was passed SSM would not have had a chance in Parliament and cp was as far as anyone could go.

Mackerel, that pretty much sums up my thoughts on it all.

Marriage these days can be/mean whatever you want it to - it doesn't have to be anything more than a functional piece of paper.

To foot stamp because 'the gays' are getting something 'special' is akin to a toddler having a tantrum because they've suddenly realised that someone else is playing with a toy and they feel left out.

It's interesting that several of the sticks used to beat marriage are entirely optional. For example, "giving away the bride" is indeed a legacy of nasty patriarchal attitudes of the past. However, it is not a part of the CofE ceremony and wasn't in 1662 either. It isn't part of the Civil service example here and I think I'm right in saying it never has been either.

If people opt to add it in, and the celebrant agrees, that's their problem, but to dismiss marriage on the grounds that it contains something that it doesn't contain and hasn't been a compulsory part of a wedding since at least 1662 (that's a long time ago, right?) seems a bit harsh.