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/

I do find the moral arguments against marriage but in favour of CP verging on the distasteful, as I said upthread: you're basically saying you'll refuse to associate yourself with an institution because of sexism, but not have the same standards for homophobia.

Thank you Eures for articulating what I can't x

"I do find the moral arguments against marriage but in favour of CP verging on the distasteful, as I said upthread: you're basically saying you'll refuse to associate yourself with an institution because of sexism, but not have the same standards for homophobia. "

Not the case for my arguments, I'm afraid, I simply haven't put the argument against civil partnership. I've put the associations of marriage and its background in context with its ownership, control and sexual inequality forward to explain why people don't want to get married.

Understanding why someone doesn't want to choose marriage for themselves doesn't mean I can't also understand why they don't want to choose civil partnership.

Does dissolving a civil partnership cost the same/follow the same process as a divorce?
Does the argument of civil partnership/marriage essentially just come down to
a) some people don't like the historic connotations of marriage (although I'm pretty sure I didn't have to promise to obey my husband, consummate our marriage, or be subservient in any way, but I may be misremembering)
b) some people feel like civil partnerships should no longer be an option as they were only introduced to 'appease' gay people and remind them that they still aren't equal to straight people. Then we copped the fuck on and same sex marriage is legal so we don't need civil partnerships anymore.
What am I missing?

The only difference is that adultery is not a ground for dissolution and refusal or inability to consummate are not grounds for nullity - a bit reminiscent of the myth (I think) that lesbianism was never a crime because nobody was willing to explain to Queen Victoria just What They Did!

The fees are the same and so are the financial remedies available.

The wife's promise to obey the husband has been optional in Anglican marriages since 1927 and is rarely heard now. It was never used in civil marriages. There was never a specific promise to consummate - the old Prayer Book form was coarse not not that coarse.

Civil marriage ceremonies are deliberately a second-class imitation of religious ceremonies. They still inherit some of the verbiage and of course the cultural baggage. I would rather have had a purely civil arrangement with no religious connections at all.

Same-sex or opposite, if you don't want your marriage to be patriarchal don't be patriarchal about it.

This.

Re the vows: as far as I can see, there is no legally required form of words in use at all registry office weddings, but this one from Thurrock County Council seems fairly representative, and nowadays this basic ceremony can be customised by the couple. I can see no religious connotations there at all.

Ironically I think a large part of the reason there is a perceived lack of patriarchy within CPs is simply because they are only performed on same-sex couples, TBH.

If a father 'gives away' his DD to her female partner, for example, it is far less culturally loaded than him doing the same thing to her male partner.

If opposite-sex couples start having civil partnerships, how long before these traditions start seeping in anyway and creating a similar 'history' to marriage?

If patriarchy is the problem, then patriarchy is the problem. Not marriage or CPs. I still think that drawing a line under CPs is the most sensible solution, and seperately examining whether an entirely new legal union should exist, and how this would apply in a global context.

Lgbt+ people in England, Scotland, Wales, have the choice between marriage and civil partnerships. Not sure why. I think in these countries only marriage should be offered to everyone.

I would be wary about comparing civil partnership in France to those here. The French CP does not convey anything like the protection of marriage and is mainly about tax efficiency and access to healthcare and benefits. It can be dissolved unilaterally and does not confer inheritance rights or protect the weaker party in the event of a split as effectively as marriage. There may be an argument to introduce such a contract in the UK, but it isn't the same as a UK CP.

In the UK you can make a marriage whatever you want it to be. You can get married in a huge variety of venues. You can have numerous types of official. You can write your own vows. You can pick and choose the traditions. You can see a solicitor and have your agreements put in a deed or a will - and yes that can be unpicked if things go wrong, but only if one partner decides to do that. And that's human nature, sometimes people change or become bitter.

But just because you can't choose to have something that was brought in as a half-measure to appease people who have been discriminated against and who were unable to have this type of recognition until embarrassingly recently, wah wah wah? This couple could have spent that money fighting discrimination in a myriad of better ways.

As for the comment about anyone who goes to the court of appeal on any point of law, what?! Each case has its own merits (and some have no merits). That's the point of having the judge decide it. But most of the day to day cases that go to the CA are about money.

Applebite The deed drawn up by a solicitor won't have the inheritance tax benefits which go with marriage and c.p.

One oddity or blunder. One of the grounds for a marriage being voidable is that at the time it was formed "the respondent was pregnant by some person other than the applicant". That's been the law since 1937 (although I believe there had never been a case brought to court) and it's been carried over into c.p. and SSM.

Now maybe I am missing something - but it seems to me that it cannot apply to two men at all - men can do many things but they cannot be pregnant by anybody - and that in the case of women all the words after "pregnant" are meaningless - women can do many things but they cannot make each other pregnant.

Perhaps it's Queen Victoria all over again!

Andrew - I did not know that about being pregnant (or "with quick child" if we're going back that far!). But the clock is ticking before someone accuses you of not caring about transmen/being anti-trans/wanting to slaughter all transpeople in a gruesome manner...

Not in a gruesome manner. Humanely. Promise!

Now where did I leave my flameproof underwear . . .

.... probably in the gents' changing room. after you "identified as a man" so you could get changed in there.

You can make a marriage ceremony whatever you want.

The one thing you can't escape though is that it is, and will be, a marriage.

And for many, including myself, that just doesn't appeal.

Not the case for my arguments, I'm afraid, I simply haven't put the argument against civil partnership. I've put the associations of marriage and its background in context with its ownership, control and sexual inequality forward to explain why people don't want to get married.

Then there couldn't be any basis for anyone to think my post applied to you...