No same sex civil partnerships

[Applebite]

AIBU to wonder who would take this to Court? Surely the point of civil partnerships was to recognise FINALLY that gay people have the same rights and needs as hetero people?

Or am I missing something that you get in a civil partnership but not a marriage? I mean, I can see why you might not want to get married, and why you would think there should be more rights for "common law spouses", but would a civil partnership give you anything (or less of something) that marriage wouldn't?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/heterosexual-couple-learn-outcome-civil-partnership-battle-court/

Sorry Demented, I didn't realise you are in NI

Marriage for all and civil partnership for all has to be the only way forward. CPs should also be extended to pairs of people in non romantic relationships - friends, siblings or long term flatmates for example - who want to benefit legally

Lottapianos - they are absolutely "less than" because they were brought in as a way of avoiding giving marriage equality to same sex couples.

Does it matter what the motives behind the introduction of something are? I've heard it said that laws against rape were only brought in to protect "husband's property" rather than specifically being motivated by women's rights. This may or may not be correct, but even if it was, well what of it? It is what we make of things now that matters I reckon.

If we didn't stop bearing a grudge over past injustices we'd all be anti the UK government, UK law, and many other institutions.

If marriage was available over here to all then I would probably get your point a bit more. But at the minute, the idea of opposite sex couples in NI having the option of both is galling!

^Does it matter what the motives behind the introduction of something are? I've heard it said that laws against rape were only brought in to protect "husband's property" rather than specifically being motivated by women's rights. This may or may not be correct, but even if it was, well what of it? It is what we make of things now that matters I reckon.

If we didn't stop bearing a grudge over past injustices we'd all be anti the UK government, UK law, and many other institutions.^

As I said before I'm all for civil unions for everyone, but Civil Partnership was never a privilege, and for this couple to be talking about Article 8 in relation to it is disingenuous and offensive.

Random I actually said you don't need to exchange vows to change your union from a CP to a marriage, you absolutely must say your vows when entering into a CP!

When the Equal Marraige law came in, many of our friends in CPs requested the Marriage certificate, without the ceremony to change the union. We decided on a ceremony as we had been CP'd for 7 years, and had 2 children since then, so we thought it would be a nice thing to do.

However I absolutely agree that you should be able to have a CP should you wish, and that NI should be forced to recognise Equal Marriage.

Equality for all :)

Can I ask those of you who would want a civil partnership rather than marriage, would you ideally want it to be substantively different to marriage? E.g. different commitments, dissolution easier than divorce etc? At the moment it effectively reflects marriage, so much of the baggage that people object to seems to be carried over. Would you rather have a completely different form of partnership or is it primarily the name and historical/social connotations that you object to?

Marriage for all and civil partnership for all has to be the only way forward. CPs should also be extended to pairs of people in non romantic relationships - friends, siblings or long term flatmates for example - who want to benefit legally

Which surely just bolds, underlines and highlights in bright yellow that CPs are NOT considered an equal, legal union between a legitimate and committed couple!

Why should all the same-sex couples who had a civil partnership during the decade when that was the only option to legally formalise their relationship, while being told that it was 'legally the same as marriage', have to accept a downgrade that basically says they are basically legally considered at the same level as flatmates?

IMO a line should be drawn under civil partnerships full stop, and something else could potentially be implemented that delivers the secular, legal and non-romantic protection some partnerships may require, which is open to all. I don't disagree with that. But it should be a new thing completely.

The trouble is that they can't now withdraw CPs either, because people have entered into them, and it's legally binding, which was kind of the entire point.

CPs should also be extended to pairs of people in non romantic relationships - friends, siblings or long term flatmates for example - who want to benefit legally

This kind of statement makes me think that (some) people think that CPs are something very different to what they are legally. I can see that people might want some form of registered commitment in these situations that gives a limited set of rights and obligations but not a full CP. OF course there is nothing to stop flatmates from entering a CP at the moment (as long as they are the same sex!) but it is completely beyond me why you would e.g. want to give your flatmate the right to inherit if you die intestate or the right to apply to a judge for maintenance or a portion of your assets or would want to be committed to your flatmate so that you couldn't legally separate for two years or unless one of you was unreasonable etc.

I wonder if really people want an alternative form partnership that is completely different from marriage and so wouldn't be provided for by current civil partnerships.

'But it should be a new thing completely. '

Why? Why should sexual or romantic relationships be seen as better or more important than any other long term partnership? Not everyone ends up in a romantic partnership but they may still have someone they want to be legally partnered to so they can both benefit. The flatmate example is just that - an example. It could be a friend or family member either

Lots of things we do today have unpleasant connotations from the past. Do you own a property, for example? Land ownership caused terrible problems for serfs many years ago; still causes inequality today. Has the suffering of people who were sold with the land put you off owning a property now?

Marriage is what you make it now, IMO.

Lottapianos, I don't think it's about sexual or romantic relationships being better but about the social function and expectations of different relationships. The law on marriage/CP is based around a relationship being a long-term, interdependent and exclusive relationship. I'd suggest that most relationships that fit that description are likely to be (or have been) sexual or romantic. In a sense it is irrelevant whether you agree with me. Of course, if you do have an exclusive, interdependent, non-sexual relationship with a friend then you can marry them. There is nothing in the law that requires you to be in a romantic or sexual relationship in order to marry/CP so you can already do that if you are both happy with that.

I'd suggest that for most people friendships etc don't have the level of interdependence or exclusivity that the law on marriage/CP is based on. It also depends on which 'benefits' you are talking about. Most of the benefits come from mutual obligations. I can't see many people wanting to take on the obligation to have their assets redistributed if the friendship split up. Of course in reality few friendships are going to be so intertwined that any judge would redistribute assets but I suppose that goes back to my point about these relationships being different from the kinds of relationship that CP/marriage is concerned with. If you are talking about benefits from the state (e.g. exemption from inheritance tax) then you need to think about why the state should support any form of relationship e.g. close friendships.

I think CP's offer a good alternative to marriage and it's about time that adults were able to have more control to determine the type of partnership they want to have without the government (law) dictating that only people in a marriage are eligible for certain benefits. It's not a zero sum game, extending CP to all people won't diminish a single group's rights.

Whether you care that a heterosexual couple can enter into a civil partnership or not, the principle of equality means that such unions should be available for all people or no one and I prefer that they become available for all. I personally think they are a good idea for all adults for many reasons. After all, isn't it strange that a bisexual person may enter into a civil partnership with their same sex partner but not if their partner is opposite sex? What if a transgender person transitions and is no longer considered to be legally in a civil partnership that they entered into before transitioning? Limiting civil partnerships just seems bizarre to me and I think they should have been available for all from the very start, of course I know the original purpose was to show minimal acceptance of gay unions.

There are many reasons why a man and a woman may choose a civil partnership over matrimony. Some feminists believe that marriage historically is an institution that has oppressed women. They prefer bonding in a non-marital family unit such as domestic partnership. Then there are women who have divorced due to domestic violence or abuse in a marriage. When they find another mate, they may be reluctant to marry, at least for a few years. They may see domestic partnership as a way of establishing a family unit without surrendering themselves to a spouse through marriage. Given that the UK still does not have "no-fault" divorce, escaping an abusive marriage is harder than it should be.

Many seniors who are widowed and many people of all ages with serious disabilities do not marry because, if they do, they might lose pension survivor benefits or government subsidies. Other seniors are fearful that a new marriage might upset estate plans for their adult children.

There are also religious reasons. Some people whose spouses have died or who have been divorced against their will have vowed never to marry again. To them, marriage is a religious experience they will only have once in life. Being a truly secular institution that does not require a sexual relationship as marriage presumably does, a civil partnership is another matter entirely. Widows & widowers or divorcees may want a civil partnership for purposes of companionship and security without any sexual overtones, and that should be their prerogative.

It's not hard to imagine why the government and religious institutions don't want to encourage civil partnerships for all, they would help adults have more flexibility in how they create and dissolve family units, free from the influence and control of religion and presumably upsetting the traditional family unit model which many in our Tory government no doubt view as sacrosanct...

Rainbunny, I agree with much of what you say but some of the points that you make for people not wanting to marry also apply to CP. I do think that (some) people both think that a CP is a different kind of legal commitment to marriage and also want there to be a genuinely different alternative relationship. I'm not sure that simply opening CP to opposite-sex couple meets those expectations.

Given that the UK still does not have "no-fault" divorce, escaping an abusive marriage is harder than it should be. Ditto to CP.

Many seniors who are widowed and many people of all ages with serious disabilities do not marry because, if they do, they might lose pension survivor benefits or government subsidies. Other seniors are fearful that a new marriage might upset estate plans for their adult children. Ditto to CP.

"Lots of things we do today have unpleasant connotations from the past. Do you own a property, for example? Land ownership caused terrible problems for serfs many years ago; still causes inequality today. Has the suffering of people who were sold with the land put you off owning a property now?

Marriage is what you make it now, IMO."

I agree it's what you make it, but the law doesn't, by law they are all the same, and you can't control other people's perceptions of your relationship based on its legal status. I can't control that my partner's mother doesn't consider me 'part of the family' but she does the partners of his siblings, because they have entered into a marriage contract, and we haven't, for example. Marriage is public, so it isn't about what you privately decide, it is legally and historically a public event.

The other key phrase is many years ago. Children born to unmarried parents were disinherited and pilloried not many years ago. When my mother and father got married, he gained the right to rape her legally. Not many years ago. Marriage is used to control and shackle people (mostly women) currently. Now. All over the world.

And back to your property analogy - shall we say straight couples can't rent property?

I think one difference is that CP are not widely recognised abroad, which could cause problems if one of the couple became ill or died on holiday. They would be seen the same as unmarried.

I agree with Osirius - the lack of recognition overseas is the single largest practical difference between CP and marriage. That isn't so often relevant for same sex couples because a lot of countries won't recognise same sex marriage anyway, but it's more frequently relevant for heterosexual couples. Very worst case scenario, you could get banged up for adultery if you visited the UAE with your opposite sex civil partner (unlikely in practice I know).

For those saying they don't want marriage because of the historical background, why are you willing to go for a civil partnership, where thehistorical background is a refusal to give same sex partners the right to marry?

I was hoping the law would be changed. I think it still will be - the situation can't persist indefinitely as it is, but as same sex couples are still choosing to enter into civil partnerships (albeit in reduced numbers) they can't be abolished. Logically they will have to be expanded.

Which I am looking forward to, as I don't want a marriage, I don't want to be someone's wife, but I do want to be in a civil partnership. That feels much more reflective of the relationship I'm in.

So it's either wait, or we'll have to go to the Isle of Man, as it's already legal there

Velvet, all 3 of the judges have said that the status quo cannot be maintained, so the law will have to be changed, it's just that 2 out of 3 judges were in favour of giving the government more time to sort it out. Hopefully they will get on with it and not force a Supreme Court challenge. Hmm, let's wait and see on that one eh?

Willing to be corrected on this, but surely the way it will be sorted out is abolishing civil partnership? Why have a two-tier system? It was only ever introduced as a makeshift solution to the absurd and immoral refusal to accept same-sex relationships as having the same validity as heterosexual relationships. The way forward now is just to have marriage.

I cannot get my head round the refusal to get married because of the words 'wife' and 'husband'. Why not just stick with 'partner' if it is that painful? Lobby for a change in the wording of the vows too, if you like. As currently constituted in the UK (except, shamefully, NI) the only difference I know of between civil partnership and marriage (at the point of entering into one, anyway) is that you could if you wanted to apply for a CP and when the documentation is ready you pick it up, pay the fee and bingo, that's the formalities over, you're CPs. No vows.

I wonder what percentage of those who have become CPs went for that option. Not many, I'd surmise, given that it was such a huge step forward for gay couples, who very naturally wanted to celebrate with their loved ones when their relationships were finally put on a similar footing to their straight friends' relationships.

Marriage is what you make it. It's just a word. I've been married for 35 years. I am not and never have been a chattel. I was not given away by my dad. We got married at a registry office with minimal fuss and embarked on a lifetime partnership. If it could be done in 1982, why is it so hard to do it in 2017?

They can't simply abolish civil partnerships because if they did, all the same sex couples who have entered into one and chosen not to get married will then have no status.

You can't automatically convert their partnerships into marriage, because they may well have good reasons for choosing partnership.

As mentioned since same sex marriage became legal couples are still entering into civil partnerships. They have chosen NOT to get married.

And sorry but marriage isn't just terminology. Although that terminology is pretty irritating. Another key element for me is that you have to put father's details on a marriage certificate.

My father is not on my birth cert, for a number of reasons. That is of no relevance in everyday life but if I marry, I'd have to state father unknown. Which he certainly is not.

I know that in Scotland you don't have to give father's details to get married. But then it's still a marriage which is not what I want. Which leaves waiting for the law to change or going outside the UK.

You do not have to state father unknown on your marriage certificate. You don't have to show anyone your birth certficate when you marry. If you know your father's name you can put it on your marriage certificate if you want to, or your adoptive father or your stepfather (if he was married to your mum at any point), or you can choose to leave that section blank.

All that happens is the registrar on the day will ask you for your father's full name and occupation - you tell them his name (or not as you choose).

Although if you don't want to get married it is a moot point.

Now that there are same-sex marriages, I think there should be no more civil partnerships.

We don't yet have same sex marriage in NI so civil partnership is still quite necessary here.

Dreadful situation One. CPs are necessary everywhere - lots of couples already have them, and lots more are keen to register