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.

Those of you who are arguing against civil partnerships for straight people : you have given some valid reasons why you personally don't want one. That's fine. But can anyone explain why they shouldn't be allowed as an option for those of us who do want one?

This is the thing, really. CP does still exist and I think most people do now feel we should all be treated equally, so it's difficult to argue for it only being allowed for a certain subsection of the population. Much as I find most of the other arguments for it flawed, I struggle to see why we shouldn't have equal access. If people want to enter into an institution that othered gay people, they should be able to do so regardless of whether they want to do it with someone who has the same apparatus as them or not.

I do get why gay people who were denied marriage for decades might be side-eyeing this couple, and at least one of the parliamentary supporters of legislation extending CP is a homophobe. But nonetheless the point remains.

To say a registry office wedding is a secular wedding is just wrong. A marriage has always been a religious ceremony, just because you take out some of the religious language and move it to an office doesn't change that, its still a marriage, a religious ceremony. That is why so many religious people are against Civil Partnerships for anyone straight people.

The real solution would be to make all unions CPs and then if some people want to go have a blessing in a church/mosque/synagogue/McDonald's/Museum/Pub then that is up to them.

I might have liked to have a humanist wedding but our 'Christian' country says no, you can't, I have to have a Christian designed wedding.

But can anyone explain why they shouldn't be allowed as an option for those of us who do want one?

I'd be fine with CP being available to everyone, straight or gay. What I side-eye is that this is being held up as some sort of terrible injustice, a choice available to gays but denied to straight people, which ignores the history of homophobia and why CP was introduced in the first place. (And ignores that it's illegal for same-sex couples to marry in the state religion's churches, too.)

It reminds me of the time that Tom Stoppard led a protest march down Hampstead high street about something like parking charges. And sure, I imagine he felt really, really strongly about parking charges (or whatever it was) but I remember thinking "really? Parking charges? That's the big injustice you are going to go to the barricades for?"

You'd need to prove that marriages have always been religious ceremonies for that argument to hold good workingdeadfangirl. That'll be quite a task for you.

Also, are you talking about the UK? In which way do you have to have a Christian designed wedding? There are weddings here from traditions whose rituals predate Christianity, for one thing.

You'd need to prove that marriages have always been religious ceremonies for that argument to hold good
What happened 3 thousand years ago is irrelevant. I am only talking about the culturally Christian England we live in now. In which marriage started being considered as a sacrament since the 12th century. The marriage ceremony we know now was designed about 500 years ago. And yes along the way non christians did win rights to get married outside a church etc but it has always been a watering down version of the religious ceremony, it was never abolished.

By defining a registry office ceremony as a non religious marriage is still defining it in relation to religion. A truly non religious union should not be a religious wedding with the religion redacted.

Its like an atheist being asked to swear on a Bible with reference to God redacted, its still a Bible FFS!

But of course this is not just about the ceremony its about the lifetime connection marriage has to religion. So until people can have rights when in a relationship without a marriage then the fight will go on.

Can we turn this on its head? Can anyone against het couples wanting a CP say why they are against it? A valid reason, not just "because it's for gay couples"? (A moot point considering gay couples can also get married)

Already did, NotCisImaWoman, a couple of posts up.

As long as CP is available to same sex couples it should also be available to opposite sex couples.

Ireland phased out CP once SSM was legalised

They did it right. UK should do the same surely?

but NI is out of the loop anyway re all this anyway. They only have CP not SSM. YET!

Oh ffs missed that! Sorry!

You're not against them though by the sounds of it. Fwiw I agree calling it an injustice because gay couples can is a bit off.

What happened 3 thousand years ago is irrelevant. I am only talking about the culturally Christian England we live in now. In which marriage started being considered as a sacrament since the 12th century. The marriage ceremony we know now was designed about 500 years ago. And yes along the way non christians did win rights to get married outside a church etc but it has always been a watering down version of the religious ceremony, it was never abolished.

Right, that is something completely different to what you initially said then. You don't mean always, you mean within the last 9 centuries. Which does leave us with the question of why you think the periods before that shouldn't be considered, why the 12th century is relevant but before that isn't. I am interested to hear the rationale, not least because actual Christian marriage ceremonies include elements that long predate the 12th century.

It's also wrong, given that people were engaged in handfasting ceremonies that weren't necessarily religious until well after the 12th century. Common enough until the 16th- 17th.

But either way, you're taking the view that because there was a time when all religious ceremonies had to be and mostly were Christian in the UK, a time much shorter than that hasn't been the case, that makes a marriage ceremony where religion is literally barred from being mentioned, that often involves no Christian believers at all, somehow innately Christian. How?

And as I pointed out, there are several traditions in the UK whose rituals predate Christianity. How for example is a Hindu wedding in the UK Christian designed? Jewish? Buddhist? I appreciate that it's usually not possible to access one of these ceremonies unless one or both of you has at least some connection to the faith in question. But they aren't Christian designed, and honestly I think it's verging on the offensive to suggest to people who have had ceremonies that are older than Christianity that they were nonetheless somehow Christian. Especially as followers of some of these traditions haven't always had the best treatment from Christians!

It is not possible for you to know anything about an individual's level of commitment in a relationship.
An unmarried couple have made less of a legal commitment to each other than a married couple.

Yes, but that legal commitment is not representative of how committed they are to the each other and the relationship, as evidenced by the very large number of marriages that fall apart and end in divorce.

@archeryannie I agree with you completely that this isn't a terrible injustice on the same scale as gay couples not being allowed to marry at all until recently. It is a minor annoyance in the grand scale of things. However it would be such an easy thing for them to be opened up to all couples and I can't see any good reasons why they shouldn't be.

I really hope they're successful! How bizarre that you may only do something if you're both the same gender

I'd very much like one. My DP and I have both been married before. He wasn't much of a "husband" and I wasn't much of a "wife" and we've no intention of signing up to those roles again. We're very much partners and I can't wait for the law to recognise that.

Kaytee - I'm with you. Having come across the "bride" irl, my view is that she likes hassle and will do anything to be difficult. Everyone likes the occasional fight, but most people pick their battles.

Gosh, you know them?

I did wonder what the original couple had done since they asked for a CP and were refused. They evidently haven't had a CP or got married, but I wonder have they had kids? I'd be really interested to know how much, if at all, they've adapted any life plans because of this case. It was a few years ago now that it all started.

Maybe people see marriage as an outdated patriarchal contract that has more to do with property than romance.

White dress that symbolises virginity? Dad giving the female away? Plus the bridezilla movement is totally off putting.

White dress that symbolises virginity? Dad giving the female away? Plus the bridezilla movement is totally off putting.

My civil marriage had none of that

Several of my lesbian friends' civil partnership ceremonies did have all three however!

Given that white wedding dresses are merely something that have become associated with marriage extremely recently, in a few cultures only, it would be very odd if anyone allowed that to influence their views on the positives and negatives of entering into a legal contract.

Yes, but that legal commitment is not representative of how committed they are to the each other and the relationship, as evidenced by the very large number of marriages that fall apart and end in divorce.
That legal commitment protects the more vulnerable partner, something that no emotional commitment ever can. A couple who is not prepared to legally commit to each other is happy to leave the more vulnerable partner unprotected.

He wasn't much of a "husband" and I wasn't much of a "wife" and we've no intention of signing up to those roles again. We're very much partners and I can't wait for the law to recognise that.
I don't get this - what is a wife's role? I've been married 25 years and nobody told me. I thought my DH and I are partners, as recognised in law by our marriage, but if there's some role I'm supposed to fulfil, I really need to know.

All of this fuss because some people don't like the fact that other people like some old traditions or have a religious ceremony.
No-one was demanding this before gay people were given it as a consolation. It should be phased out in favour of marriage equality.

I have more protection thanks than many married partners. You don't need to be married to have protection.

We've been unmarried for 30 years,pretty sure we're more committed than the marriages we've seen come and go.

My son is gay. I'm not particularly fussed about him getting married either. Neither is he.Neither of us think it's fair that he can have a CP but we can't.Committment is far more than a wedding ceremony and I think many married couples wouldn't know what committment was if it bit them on their nose.

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

I feel the same which is why I got married without any of the trappings.

No-one was demanding this before gay people were given it as a consolation. It should be phased out in favour of marriage equality.

This.

This pair bleating on and taking this case are embarrassing really. Gay people have and are often still marginalised, abused, harassed and discriminated against. And the one tiny thing they have “different” to straight people, they have to also try and appropriate as their own. Hetero privilege at its finest.

The gov should just abolish CP altogether and be done with it. Now we have marriage equality there’s no need for it. It was not intended for heterosexual couples to use as some sort of protest against the patriarchy. It was a “second best” half arsed attempt at giving gay couples rights without proper equality

"The real solution would be to make all unions CPs and then if some people want to go have a blessing in a church/mosque/synagogue/McDonald's/Museum/Pub then that is up to them. "
This sums up how I feel perfectly.