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.

Mothers are on Scottish marriage certificates.

I would have had a civil partnership if it were available to heterosexual couples. But it's not.

There are valid reasons for not wanting to be 'married'.

I hope it gets sorted.

The way it will get sorted is that CPs will be abolished - as they should have been at the same time gay marriage was legalised.

@SandyY2K ah I thought you were the poster who said they had a civil marriage that wasn’t a sacrament. I don’t think religion derails the thread - I think the religious connotations of marriage are part of why straight couples might support civil partnership. Also, if you are catholic, then although you see marriage as legal as well as religious, you’re unlikely to be uncomfortable with the religious aspect in the way that I am - so I’d understand why you wouldn’t see the need.

I just see why not - if it’s there and straight couples want it what’s the issue?

Fair enough, Sunnymeg.

To a lot of people, you mention wedding and people are expecting ceremonies, dresses and parties and would get really disappointed when nobody is invited and there is no do. Civil partnership just seems a little more comfortable and low key. Yes I do know your wedding, your choice and all that but it's not easy with expectant relatives.

The way it will get sorted is that CPs will be abolished - as they should have been at the same time gay marriage was legalised.

Agreed.

@PinguDance
I just see why not - if it’s there and straight couples want it what’s the issue?

I totally agree with this. ☺
It wouldn't be for me, but why not have it as an option.

A pp said they didn't want to get married (or some thing along those lines (because it was a sacrament.

I was just saying in reponse that you can get married without bringing religion into it. So I don't think not being religious in itself, is a reason not to get married.

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.
As you acknowledged, thousands of couple don't conform to any of this because none of it is that much of a norm.
I also don't see what would be that different in a CP, apart from being given away (which isn't even necessary in a marriage)

I have this whole thing just bonkers.
Marriage is not a religious ceremony, the patriarchal history is as relevant as you choose to make it. Traditions change over time - make your own traditions! Marriage is a legal contract - anything over and above that is free choice.

Formalising a woman's wish to retain their maiden name if they wish
That is already the default position. It is an active choice to change your name.

Civil partnerships seem to remain popular with religious, older gay people who are unable to marry within their church and who do not want a civil marriage.

Apparently a major reason why mothers still aren't on marriage certificates is the marriage registers would also need to be changed (as they only have a column for fathers at the moment), and reprinting all the marriage registers would cost a fortune. They are now planning to move to a technological solution for the registers, rather than pen and ink, so no need for any costly reprinting and mothers will be included.

I feel a bit sad so many people on MN think if you wont get married you are not allowed any rights with your partner.

It doesn't matter if you think a CP is no different from a marriage, some people dont want to get married they want a different option. And there is one, its called a civil partnership.

So suck it up and move out of the way, we dont want marriage, stop forcing it on us. We deserve rights, its doesn't affect you, so why be so selfish and bigoted against people who have different beliefs from you?

We deserve rights, its doesn't affect you, so why be so selfish and bigoted against people who have different beliefs from you?

Is this a parody?

You don't have to use husband/wife. They are in the traditional wording but there is an alternative wording where you just call you other half by their name rather than as husband or wife.

I don't understand the objections to marriage which are based on dislike of 'tradition'.
You don't have to have any of it.
There's nothing religious, Christian or otherwise, in a civil ceremony. You are not 'given away' and you don't have to take anyone's name if you don't want to. My sister didn't even 30 years ago.

As for a pp saying she objected because she doesn't believe in God, words almost fail me. What planet are some people on? Are there still remote pockets of the UK where you're forced into a church wedding, and forced to say you will obey?

No, I didn't think so.

Marriage is important to me, hence being married, but I do think there should be an option available to those who don't want what they feel are the traditional connotations of marriage. They should have a legal protection of some sort, as already mentioned, I had more rights the day I married my boyfriend of 18mths, who I hadn't even lived with, then someone who has been living with a partner and their children for over 20 years.

Maybe it doesn't even need to be a CP, but there should be something that legally offers protection for those involved. I'm not sure what to call it though, maybe just Legal/Formal Union and nothing more than a signing of a form in front of a solicitor - afterall I can do a will that way.

@gettinglikemymother

That's my personal reason for, theoretically, preferring a civil partnership to a marriage. TO ME entering into a marriage FEELS TO ME like I'm undertaking something that doesn't quite fit. Even a civil marriage has these overtones TO ME.

So I'd prefer a secular option that wasn't called marriage. It might seem silly to you but there we are. If you had a non 'traditional' wedding why don't you call it a civil partnership rather than a marriage. I can't see a good reason not to.

@TrinaN not sure what country you are in but that is not the case in England and Wales

Just reminds me of MRAs who bang on about how unfair it is that women have an advantage in about three situations (eg child custody, shorter custodial sentences etc) and scream about how unfair it is.

Oh yes, those lucky gay couples getting this wonderful choice! Let’s ignore the fact that they only have that choice in the first place due to bigotry. They have something we don’t and I want it. Waaaah!

I’m married. I wasn’t given away by my father, or any of the other outdated or religious things mentioned here. Civil Partnerships aren’t some great exercise in progressive unions - they existed to make sure that Homosexual couples knew they weren’t allowed the same rights as heterosexual couples.

What a load of revisionist bollocks.

To me this is a complete non-argument. Surely we don’t need CPs at all now that
everyone can just get married?

To those who aren’t comfortable with the patriarchal/religious history (which is the main reason people keep giving for preferring CP to marriage), can you not choose to see it instead as a wonderful example of the modernisation of an old institution, where patriarchy and religion are simply brushed aside?

I am a straight woman and find that view very powerful.

My DP and I plan to marry one day. We will choose a secular service, I won’t be changing my name (or we might both change our names to something new), won’t be given away, promise anything silly in the vows, wear a virginal white dress etc, none of the patriarchal trappings. This is something completely open to us all right now and I think the sidelining of the patriarchal/religious elements of marriage is something to be enjoyed, broadcast and celebrated rather than something to hold on to and fret about.

The fact that LGBT people can now formalise their relationship as ‘marriage’ massively strengthened the whole institution for me and made me much more willing to engage with it. I am very happy to sign up to this modern concept of marriage. It is simply a legal framework for formally recognising couples. It is open to both gay and straight partnerships. Is based on genuine equality between the pair and is totally secular at heart (religion can of course still be added in as an optional sprinkling over the top if you choose).

I think the obvious answer is to abolish CPs and really can’t see why people have to make it all so complicated

@needmorespace thank you for the correction - I was reading the wrong bit of the vows in the Marriage Act.

You can not abolish civil partnerships. They exist, and you cannot take away someone’s rights. Hetero couples can get civil partnerships all over Europe and on the Isle of Man. Why not here?

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.

Absolutely this.

Fuck history. Marriage is what YOU make it.

The government has just started a consultation with a view to abolishing CPs. If it happens it won't take away anyone's rights now everyone can get married.

Wanting the legal benefits and recognition without the negative Christian, misogynistic connotations of marriage?

This!