To not get why this heterosexual couple are campaigning for civil partnership?

[Crunchymum]

Just that really

I'm tired and haven't read everything about the case but I don't get it?

What are they hoping to acheive?

Gay couples being able to marry, I understand. This I don't.

For disclosure, i'm in a LTR with no intention to marry.

You're conflating rights and protection there. But they aren't necessarily the same thing and shouldn't be confused.

An unmarried couple, for example, will both have more freedom to leave their assets to someone other than each other, unchallenged, than a married couple would. Both sets of couples have rights, but different ones. The unmarried couple may consider the right to leave their assets to their children without fear of challenge to be very important. They still won't have the same protection as a married couple would in respect of inheriting each others assets. They might consider that a vital right. And for couples like the unmarried one I mention, extending CP will be irrelevant.

There are no doubt some for whom CP extension would be a positive step but let's not pretend that all unmarried couples want, need or are suffering without the legal status of marriage/CP.

I don't disagree at all

But tea has said she has more protection than marred couples and why would she need legal protection

There are legally rights and responsibilities that are only accessible to married couples, therefore I don't quite understand in what way she may have greater protection than other couples who add married

I don't have any issues with there bring a civil unions for opposite sex couples

I'm just a bit perplexed as to what these protections that tea is referring to might be

If you were to simply rename civil marriage to 'civil union', you'd have two virtually identical institutions - one with historical roots in a patriarchal system (marriage rebranded) and one with very recent roots in a homophobic system (CP extended to opposite sex couples)

Which suggests it's one of nomenclature at heart?

PaulDacreRims - I don’t know too much about it so interested to hear more but I thought civil partnerships were created as a sop to powerful homophobic views eg from churches and as entrenched in the law defining marriage, but as a way of extending legal protections to same sex couples.
So in that sense the origin of legal marriage and it’s social/ insitutional recognition as we currently have it- I presume to do with property and inheritance rights and control of legimatcy of children and women’s place in society etc comes from a historically unequal place as does CP. But if CP in practice is a neutral contract that seems preferable of the two, non perfect options on the table.

Wanting legal international recognition of your relationship (up to and including not getting a criminal record for adultery) isn’t a nice reason to get married, but it’s a perfectly sensible reason if you want to travel or work outside liberal democracies (and even in some of them recognition can have very unpredictable administrative consequences). In an international world it’s the biggest practical difference between marriage and CPs.

CP in practice is virtually identical to marriage chatty. The differences between the two as legal contracts are almost non-existent. If one's a neutral contract, though I'm not sure either is, so is the other.

In both cases it's the connotations that are the problem. If a person prefers more recent homophobic connotations to older, more severe patriarchal, that's up to them, but if the history is a deal breaker than neither is neutral. Talking about CP as neutral is attributing something inaccurate to it.