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.

It’s not fair/equal that gay couples get the choice of 2 legal couplings and straight couples don’t.
You can marry in church, I can't, despite going to church every Sunday and having believed in God my whole life. Think you've got it bad?

When Ireland allowed same sex marriage, all civil partnerships could be converted into marriage, and no new civil partnerships were allowed- a recognition that civil partnerships, like in the U.K., were simply a very slightly watered down alternative to marriage by another name to get over our discomfort around letting gay people marry.

In other European countries, civil partnerships usually are something less than marriage- the kind of first stage protection you might want if you live with someone but don't yet have kids/want the full legal responsibilities of marriage.

Ireland actually has automatic cohabitation laws which are new, but sensible- nothing like the protection of marriage but essentially if you live together for 5 years without children or two years with children, and you split, a court can get involved and order a degree of maintenance, property reallocation, etc. It's opt-out rather than opt-in.

What people are arguing for here seems pointless to me- it's just marriage by a slightly different name. Where there's a gap is in the in-between stage, as they have in other jurisdictions. My marriage didn't have flowery language, or god, or any patriarchy. I prefer to reclaim it as an equal partnership than in any way accept lesser rights or protection.

But yes- I think the UK civil partnerships as they stand should be phased out, and potentially a new interim level of protection introduced for all, however I think this variant of civil partnerships was always a fairly pointless cop out and instead of coming from a history of patriarchy it has a history of homophobia instead (the reason for the adultery rule not being included is because gay sex isn't proper sec) so I'm not sure why that's any better.

I’d be tempted by a straight cp.

Marriage is abhorrent to me.

Because, even though we had our marriage in a registry office to avoid any religious connotations (we're both atheist), the officiant still read from a script that said "marriage is the union of one man and one woman..." Whilst I suppose it's technically true, why go out of your way to celebrate bigotry? We had LGBTQ+ friends watching, and I felt really awkward about it. We weren't told it was going to be said, and I'm not sure we would have had the option of not having it said - it seemed to be a standard part of the process.

It would be great to have been able to have a non-religious, non-homophobic, non-misogynistic version.

(Whilst I suppose it was technically true...)

I would understand if you could only have a religious marriage but you can also have a secular legal marriage with no pomp and circumstance. I think I suddenly see their motivation when they referred to an inheritance tax loop hole associated with civil partnership. I feel no empathy for them, as a white heterosexual couple they are hardly targets for discrimination and this screams of all the men who pop up on national women's Day to demand national men's day (it's November 19th btw but I don't think they actually care)

@lannieduck I would've asked for the ceremony options in advance, ours said 'marriage is the union of two people'

Well I've learned something. I honestly thought everyone could have a cp

I’m in a CP (I have no issue with same-sex marriage, but it wasn’t an option when DP and I did the deed) and think it should be available to any couple that wants it. Surely equality works both ways?

FASH We had very basic details, and we provided our own vows. I guess we just didn't think there'd be much else to it! There wasn't really, just some unexpected words.

With hindsight I wonder why they didn't provide a transcript of their text along with the rest of the details of what would be happening. We should probably have questioned it immediately after.

@LannieDuck How long ago did you get married? The wording should have changed by now and usually is 'the union of two people' or 'witness the union of X and Y'.

You may just have had someone who has done the job for years, knows the odd script by heart and did it without thinking.

When we got married (we had a civil service) we were given a copy of the script and options for the service and we could pick which sets of words we wanted for the opening, vows etc.

A civil service and a church service are very different in what they include. In a civil service you are not allowed to have any mention of God, religion etc. We wanted music during our service (walking in, leaving and during the signing) and we had to give advance details of the songs so they could be vetted - if they contained any overt religious references you got told no.

The Irish got it right; they abolished their version of c.p. when they brought in s.s.m.

Trina Yes, sorry - I realised it should have been past tense and corrected it in a subsequent post. We got married in 2010.

I think we either have 1) marriage and the option of civil partnership, or we 2) just have marriage, or we 3) just have civil partnership (and if you want a ceremony with religious associations you go off and do that anywhere you like as well). This is about equality, neither same-sex or mixed sex should have something that the others don't.

I would be in favour of having a legal agreement in place that any partnership can commit to that gives legal protection. It would be for mixed couples, same sex couples, siblings... anyone who was in a partnership needing protection of their assets, wanting the other to benefit from their pension etc. Then if in addition you chose to be married in a ceremony that is recognised as a commitment by your religion you go off and do that. But the two would not be linked, thus separating law from belief and religion.

If CP is not available to heterosexual couples, only "real" marriage, then it is diminishing to the status gay couples. Everyone is equal, but straight people are a little more equal than gay people etc.

Also, the vibe around CP is more "modern" to a lot of people, and I know several couples who would have very much preferred it to marriage, which has traditional and not always positive connotations. The outsider status of CP is more appealing in that sense.

I agree with the poster above though - Ireland did well by ditching it altogether and making marriage legal for all, plain and simple.

No ceremony necessary for CP makes it different.

I do see why people want straight CP so we are all equal before the law, so I agree with Peter Tatchell's approach on this point. I also agree with him that same sex couples should be able to have a religious union too, and consider this point of principle to be as important as universal CP. We don't have equality under the law at the moment and we should.

The arguments about associations with Christianity are mystifying, though. Marriage predates Christianity literally by millennia. There are legal texts discussing marriage from many centuries earlier than Jesus. And not only have secular marriages been legal in the UK for almost two centuries, but a very clear majority of marriages in the UK are secular. Only about 30% are religious, much less Christian.

It's also rather dubious that people are against marriage because of the patriarchal connotations, which itself is understandable, but are fine with CP, which has homophobically othered gay people in the much more recent past. I'd find it much more understandable if people who are opposed to marriage on principle were advocating for some kind of third option, rather than just choosing some other unpleasant connotations instead. This is assuming said people aren't homophobic, obviously, but in my experience they aren't.

Lastly OP, hope you have as many ducks in a row as possible wrt wills, IHT planning, property ownership, partner as named beneficiary on pension and life insurance etc (if wanted). Hopefully you have but for anyone reading who's in a LTR and not going to marry who hasn't, get it done now! Solicitor asap.

So if sex (adultery/lack of etc) is the difference between cp and a civil ceremony in a licenced location, why not just go for the civil marriage?
Seems a lot more straightforward than introducing another legal option.
These days, partners want the equality but without frills. You don't need the God stuff to get married. If you are committed then you decide whether you can live with no sex or a cheating partner. If the answer is no then dissolve the marriage or don't do it. same for a cp. There are lots of open marriages and lots of sexless marriages. Having a certificate does not protect you from a straying partner or automatically entitle you to sex. I struggle to see how a cp can add anything apart from not being able to dissolve it if your relationship falls apart due to issues about sex.

Well, I suppose it's all about having a marriage without the religious aspect.

I don't really understand why it's such an issue, why can't gay couples get married and straight couples get a civil partnership? Who cares? 🤔

You can have as big or small ceremony for a CP as for a marriage, you can't have no ceremony (in the sense that as a minimum you, your DP, your witnesses and the registrar have to meet in a licensed venue in order to have a CP or a marriage).

Secular marriage is marriage without the religious aspect, so it can't be that.

In terms of adultery, obviously it's important to some people that adultery be a specific ground on which they can have their union legally ended, but I'd think you could petition to have a CP dissolved on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour if one party was cheating. There isn't really a legally recognised and state sanctioned union that you can be sure your partner won't be able to end if you have sex with someone else.

This is a fun thread. "I abhor a contract between a couple granting them legal and financial protection and would much prefer a contract between a couple granting them legal and financial protection"

Mmm. And much as I can see why people don't want to engage in an institution that has patriarchal associations, cohabitation outside marriage isn't exactly doing women as a cohort any favours either. Certainly there are women for whom it's more advantageous, and I don't for one second suggest those women should marry just because it would be better for the majority of us to do so. But the reality is that women who are in LTRs but not married don't do any better wrt income or incurring the caring penalty, they just do the same things as married women do but with less legal protection.

So we get to choose historical patriarchal associations (marriage) vs recent historical homophobia (CP) vs currently disadvantaging women more than men (LTR with neither). Yay!

We got married in Scotland and the ONLY legal wording was 'will you take this person to be your husband/wife/partner' the rest we wrote ourselves. Our 'vows' were a funny poem...no rings...no walking down isle...
It doesn't all have to be religious.

Yes to the poster who said 'all the legal rights without the romantic stuff' or something along those lines.