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.

I thought that a CP didn't acknowledge the sexual nature of the partnership so you couldn't divorce on the grounds of infidelity? Or have i got it completely arse about face?

I think they should change civil partnerships slightly. No vows about love etc, no ceremony, just a legal contract with witnesses, sign here. That would make the more distinctly different to a marriage ceremony. Have a party afterwards if you want. I do wonder if a CP might present some difficulty in other jurisdictions though, I mean would you then be the other persons spouse? And yes, I do think this couple should have access to one. What's the governments argument against?

What do people think a civil partnership brings that a marriage doesn't?

It's more about what does marriage have that civil partnership doesn't. And the answer to that is things that I don't want, things that make me uncomfortable.

e.g. I don't believe in god and I'm a feminist who feels uncomfortable about the patriarchal history of marriage.

I'd much prefer a CP to marriage.

CP can be dissolved due to unreasonable behaviour, which can be being sexually unfaithful. It just doesn't have adultery as a separate specific reason for dissolving the partnership.

I just don't like the idea of marriage, and how I still get "are you not married yet?" "Has he still not asked you yet" "has he not made an honest woman out of you yet?" Blah blah blah.

I find it really nonsensical that me and my partner of 20+ years with 2 DC and a house have less rights and protection as my friend who has recently married her bf of 6 months who live separately. It's really bizarre.

I'd prefer a CP if it were open to me. I don't like the patriarchal baggage of marriage.

I want to change our marriage to a civil partnership if this is successful. I nearly spewed reading my vows. They are fucking rediculous. The whole notion behind them is rediculous too.

You should be able to enter a legally binding contract with the same protections without all of the vomit inducing patriarchal guffaw.

'Marriage' should be the secondary option to a CP. For those that want to have and to hold. Some of us just want the legalities we should be entitled to without that bollocks.

Other countries opened up civil partnership to all when they legalised gay marriage. The UK left civil partnerships only available to lgbt couples.

CP should either be dropped altogether or opened to all - I personally couldn't care less which way they go, just as long as they don't leave it the way it is now.

I won’t get married but would have a cp if DP wanted one. I don’t want to be a wife, change my name, have a wedding, join my in laws family, be given away by my father etc etc.

I think it’s ridiculous and they have spent a lot of money just to prove a point.

I think this can equally apply to the gov. What is the argument against them having a CP?

kenndodd I think the basic civil marriage doesn't have the live stuff or the goes. You just declare that you are legally free to marry, job done. Religious content is expressly forbidden.I don't really see the difference but other people do and it puts them at a massive disadvantage. I would rather people were given the option to actively get legal rights than the law change to take away the rights by default from people who want to protect their assets by not getting married iyswim.

I don’t want to be a wife, change my name, have a wedding, join my in laws family, be given away by my father etc etc.

Apart from the first, none of those is obligatory.

Differences between marriage and civil partnerships (taken from Wikipedia):

The contracts of marriage and civil partnerships are very similar though there are some technical differences: Venereal disease is a grounds for annulment of marriage, but not civil partnership; adultery is a grounds for divorce, but not dissolution of civil union; where laws differ for wife and husband, both partners are generally treated like the husband would be. Otherwise, the rules for pensions, survivor benefits, annulment and dissolution are very similar

I'm always surprised by people being bothered about this, do they find the prospect of heterosexual civil partnerships threatening to their own marriage status somehow?

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 people 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.

Would people object to the idea of marriage so much if it was called, say, matrimonial partnership?

I have never understood this either. What is the difference between the two because I just don’t get it?

I would have had a CP if they were available.

Marriage as an institution has a whole load of baggae with it re historical patriarchal religious etc etc

civil partnership is not equal to marriage, For example you cannot divorce from a civil partnership on grounds of adultery

Equality. That's like saying why is this well fed person campaigning against world hunger

its truly daft. CP and marriage are the same thing, bar the reasons for being able to divorce/dissolve are slightly different (but really its probably best they drop the adultery fact for divorce and it went under unreasonable behavior anyway)

i mean knock yourself out and spend money to fight this one. It really won't make any difference. Anyone who thinks a CP and a civil marriage are any different is a bit daft - a widow who doesn't want to re-marry due to her estate well doing a CP would have THE EXACT SAME RESULT. You are just as much "surrendering" in a marriage or a CP. its just a different name for pretty much the identical thing.

I’d get a CP over a marriage- marriage is a sacrament and I’m not religious. I know in the UK we don’t really think of it as such because we don’t have the civil/religious divide they do in, say, France. But still, that’s how I think of it.

I hope it goes through but if it doesn’t I’d get married - it’s not the hill I’m going to die on but I’d like the option.

It’s not fair/equal that gay couples get the choice of 2 legal couplings and straight couples don’t.

Boo-fucking-hoo. Come back to me in ooh, about two thousand years and I shall have some sympathy.

I would be entirely happy if civil partnerships were available to straight people, but I seriously side-eye any straight couple who have chosen this as their crusade.

The main differences between marriage and CP are:

Non-consummation is grounds for annulment of heterosexual marriage (but not homosexual marriage or CP).
Adultery isn’t a specific ground for dissolving a civil partnership.
Marriage is internationally acknowledged whereas CP often isn’t (so heterosexuals might not want to go that route if they’re going to work in Dubai).
Marriage carries historic baggage of patriarchal bullshit.
Civil Partnership carries recent baggage of homophobic bullshit.
Civil partners can get a worse deal on pensions.
Formal separation (prior to dissolution) is slightly different for CPs.

Personally I’m not feeling the need for straights to have access to this somewhat cowardly legacy compromise deal but hey, if they want it and they’re not going to want to travel abroad then I guess I’m happy to let them have it.

When I got married we simply went to the register office, said the bare minimum legally required, signed a bit of paper then went home. That was it. I'm astonished that people still think that wedding frilly bits are obligatory, they're not. Not protecting your, and more importantly your children's, security because of feudal practices hundreds of years long gone is bonkers.

just realised my grandmother’s Catholicism must have had some influence on me after all! I guess the Protestant influences in England is why we don’t usually think of marriage as a sacrament, but still, it’s definitely religious to me and on those grounds I’d rather have a secular version.