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.

What does it offer? The chance for your mother to be recognised as significant for one.

It's not hundreds of years gone. It was only in the 1990s that rape was legal within marriage for example. It isn't many decades before that where women needed their husbands permission to take out mortgages, have bank accounts etc.

In many other countries marriage is still used as a tool to control girls and women.

The existence of civil partnership for only gay couples is a bit of a reminder that their love is still seen as inferior by bit of the establishment. I could see a fight to make all options available to everyone as part of an anti-homophobia agenda. The government was spineless not to make it all even when they finally introduced homosexual marriage. They were just storing this up really.

33 years unmarried here, we'd have a CP. You have to fight against the societal norms of marriage for the feeling of equality . E.g. not taking husband's name, changing title, being given away, waiting for a proposal, taking on the majority of grunt work, majority of parenting, having the secondary career, giving children their father's name etc. I know that thousands of couples don't conform to this but amazingly in the 21st century it is still the norm for most marriages from what I see and hear,

I think it's mad. I mean same sex couples were forced to have civil partnerships because they were not allowed the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Straight couples could always have that legal protection if they chose so for them to try and claim civil partnerships in addition to marriage is wrong imo. Marriage does not have to be romantic or religious, it can be just a joint ’contract’ affording legal protection so why they don't just get married I don't know.

My DF who had multiple affairs before DM divorced him is very pro-civil partnership for heterosexual couples. He claims it’s about equality but always drops in ‘and did you know that adultery cannot be used as grounds to end a civil partnership?’ This puts me off. But when I’m feeling more rational I agree with many of the comments made by rainbunny.

I am pretty sure from your example, the women take on the majority of parenting and having a secondary career, as they marry not great MEN. Not because they have a marriage over a civil partnership with the same man.

Phone your local registration office, book a statutory ceremony for £50.
Give your notice of marriage (civil partnerships have to do the same).
Turn up at your ceremony with your two witnesses (civil partnerships are the same).
Say that you are free legally to marry.
Contract that you take your partner to be your husband/wife.
Sign the register (civil parternships sign a schedule).
Go home.

Not one iota of romance, love, giving away, patriarchy, name-changing, flowers, confetti, just a short verbal contract between you both to be married.

I think there should be no more civil partnerships now there is same sex marriage for those who wish for it. Formalising a woman's wish to retain their maiden name if they wish, or indeed for a man to adopt their wife's surname, could be one step forward.

Sorry, forgive my ignorance but I don't actually know what the difference is between marriage & CP? Apart from the fact that one is for Hetro & one is for gay lesbian.

I know stereotypically a marriage has the bells and whistles of a fancy dress, party, honeymoon etc (of course a CP can too, and of course a wedding can be super low key too)

Is there something legally different?

I presume it's not to do with religion because you can get married in a registry office?

Those that are saying I'd prefer a CP over marriage why is that?

I don't blame them. Now that same sex couples can get married, they can either scrap civil partnerships or allow them for everybody.

Why should same sex couples get a choice.

Formalising a woman's wish to retain their maiden name if they wish,

Huh?

ForalltheSaints - there is no need for maintenance of maiden name's to be formalised. The marriage ceremony does not change anyone's name, rather men and women can use their marriage certificate to facilitate a name change should they so wish. You don't leave the ceremony with a new name, you use your maiden name to sign the legal paperwork, the registrar (if you wish) may introduce you to your guests with your married name but that is your choice and has no legal basis.

I think it is important to have a second option for heterosexual couples on the grounds of equality. We currently have a situation where a certain proportion of the population are excluded from an option that is available to others, because of their sexual orientation. Everyone should have the same rights.

Maiden name. Another horrible term used in wedlock. Again, the connotations of marriage is what puts people off not the ease of doing it.

YANBU. As for the religious connotations, there was nothing religious about our marriage, we had it in a civic building, The religious aspect is relatively new in humanity, people have been having marriages for a lot longer then Christianity has existed. I would rather think of it as reclaiming marriage from the abrahamic religions, nobody owns marriage, nor is it a preserve of religions or harking back to what it used to be, things in life are what you make of them.

Those that are saying I'd prefer a CP over marriage why is that?*

I think everyone who has expressed a preference has given their reasons.

People also refer to their maiden name if they change names following a civil partnership.

The only reason CPs exist is because to appease religious groups at the time the government could not give same sex couples marriage. Now that same sex couples can marry more do.

The government could just get rid of new CPs so continue to honour the current ones and stop anyone having a new CP.

If couples want the rights and protections of marriage then get married. If you do not want a marriage contract then they do not get the rights and protections.

The reasons against that I keep hearing are silly and detract from the equality argument. Nowhere does it say that marriage means religion (no religion is allowed in civil ceremonies), you don't have to spend a fortune, you do not have to become a Mrs or change your name, wives do not have to give up work or do the majority of childcare or housework. If you don't do it before the marriage why do it after?

I have nothing against them being allowed CPs but in practice they are no different to marriage and I find it odd that people seem to think they are. You still have a legal contract, the same rights and you still have to dissolve the partnership as you would a marriage.

For anyone interested. the reason that adultery is not a grounds for dissolution of a partnership is that adultery is legally sexual intercourse between two people of the opposite sex.

As a CP is between two people of the same sex, one partner is likely to cheat with someone of the same sex so by law that is not adultery.

In the same way, if your DH cheats on you with a woman you can divorce for adultery but not if he cheats with another man.

Why should same sex couples get a choice.

You are aware, I presume SandyY2K, that hetwrosexual couples get a choice that same-sex couples are denied: a church wedding in England or Wales?

Come back to me when you've sorted that out, and then we can talk about how unfair it is that same sex couples get to have civil partnerships, which were only ever put in place because people did not want to grant traditional marriage rights to gay people.

Civil partnership over marriage. The former is about equality. The latter is rooted in misogyny & religious nonsense

I’d get a CP over a marriage- marriage is a sacrament and I’m not religious.

It's a sacrament if your religious. If you pop down to the registry office it's just a legality.

Marriage in.the western world oppresses women if they allow themselves to be oppressed for whatever reason.

I am not oppressed in marriage and never would be.

I would like one for the reasons everyone has given above - I am uncomfortable with the historical associations of marriage and it's basis in the patriarchy. As things stand dp will probably grit our teeth and do it sometime for all of the sensible legal and financial stuff as we have two dc, joint finances, mortgage etc. I would jump at the chance to get the same benefit without signing up for an institution that leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

The other reason is the feelings of my close family and friends. If we got married we would have the most basic legal ceremony possible, and I know that our parents would be a bit upset when they found out. A civil partnership wouldn't have the same significance for them.

I am aware of the history of civil partnerships and that they were seen as a lesser alternative to marriage. I suspect that if they became legal for heterosexual couples then the stigma would disappear, and then they would begin to become popular amongst both hetero and homosexual couples who feel the same as I do about marriage. If an increasing number of people chose civil partnership over marriage, that would have the satisfying side benefit of annoying the kinds of people who didn't want to allow gay marriage in the first place

I don't think CP are massively different to marriages (there are small differences as people have been describing). What is important to me is the fact that a CP isn't a marriage. It's a modern legal status that has no background in misogyny.

I would support a new legal partnership to replace civil partnerships in order to avoid the association with discriminating against same sex couples, if that were possible.