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

What greater legal legal protection do you have that many married couples don't have??*

What a load of tosh baked beans. My son has been abused for being gay,it has zilch to do with the unfairness that is the situation with CP. Pretty sure most gay people certainly dont feel ownership towards CP and wouldn't give two hoots if everybody could have one.

Why should it be phased out? It serves a purpose and many people want them.

I have all the financial protection I need. You don't need to be married to have financial protection. What do I need legal protection for?

Inheritance tax?

You might not personally want the financial protection afforded by marriage depending on your individual circumstances

But you do have to be legally married to access certain kinds of financial rights and responsibilities.

A cohabiting couple cannot access the tax benefits afforded to married couples. An unmarried couple does not have the same rights as a married couple in the event of challenging a will or if one partner dies intestate. A cohabitation agreement can cover financial arrangements in the event of the relationship breakdown down, but it can't change HMRC regulations.

I remember hearing that CP is a better contract, more modern. Allows for things marriage contract doesn't. Has to do with being a written contract that can be personalised and it comes into being when both parties sign, whereas marriage is medieval and comes into effect when the parties make a verbal vow - no option to vary it. A CP might make a prenup more legally binding, for example. If this is true (and I can't find anything to say it is), an inequality does exist. Apparently they are thinking of phasing CPs out...

Absolutely pointless. Now that gay marriage has been brought in civil partnerships should be scrapped.

Won't be any will challenging, no tax benefits applicable to us to worry about....

You might not want to access any of the legal benefits afforded by marriage

But it's not accurate to say You don't need to be married to have financial protection when there are financial rights and responsibilities that cohabiting couples cannot legally access unless they marry

The right to have sex without risking being stoned to death for adultery is reserved for married couples in certain countries. Granted in most cases the worst thing that will happen to a British couple will be deportation - but your only absolute guarantee of safety is celibacy, a heterosexual marriage certificate, or staying well clear of a significant chunk of the globe.

I don’t see why the choice of marriage or Civil Partnership shouldn’t be available to straight and gay couples both alike.

As a woman personally I don’t like all the historical baggage of marriage and the ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ roles, I don’t like that you are only asked for the fathers’ profession on the marriage certificate etc etc. The weight of sexism is still there in the marriage set up. Civil partnership (I would hope) if available to straight couples would feel modern and progressive by taking all that baggage out and being a neutral contract between the couple.

I will never visit any country that would stone me for being in my relationship, or otherwise treat me as a criminal. I would take that as a fairly clear sign of not being welcome there!

@Toomanytealights arguably if you live with someone and your finances/property are bound up with each other, you do need some legal protection. You have no rights unless you have done something legally binding (like write a will). For example, if the person you live with has a car crash and is in a coma for some weeks and you need access to their money to be able to make ends meet, a CP or marriage will automatically give you the right to apply to do so. Even If you've lived together for thirty years, the law will treat you no differently to having not lived together at all and the process of applying will be time consuming and expensive. If you've paid towards a mortgage, but your name's not on it, you have no property rights if you split or your partner dies, nor rights to a portion of someone else's pension. People do sometimes get these things, but unless things are amicable, it is a protracted and expensive battle with no certainty.
I agree with PPs who say everyone should be able to have a CP to cover the legal side and marriage should be a non-binding add-on done for emotional/religious reasons as in many countries. I have friends who've had a registry office wedding for the legal side and non-legal vows elsewhere (e.g. at the foot of a special hill).
I also think a form of CPs should be available to people who live together platonically, but who rely on each other. It might have to have an opt out over rights over kids.

Can someone explain to me the difference between a CP and a registry office wedding? I've been to both and they're almost identical!

@allthatmalarkey it's possible that tea has a legal cohabitation agreement in place to make provision for the end of a relationship, and some pension providers don't differentiate between spouses and partners if they're the nominated beneficiary

Can't get round IHT though. And you can have your name on the deeds and all financed joint and provision in a legal cohabitation agreement (although as that's significantly more expensive than a civil marriage that's a very expensive option to choose if you want to make provision for some of the financial protection of marriage without getting married), but you still won't have many of the rights and responsibilities afforded by marriage

tea may not want these in her relationship, and may be happy without tax benefits like married couple's allowance, bereavement allowance as well as IHT

@Dhalandchips they are except for a few very minor points www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

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

You don't, but you do need to be married to have certain protections. The question then is simply whether you want them. Because men as a cohort have more income and wealth than women as a cohort, on average women are better protected via marriage. This may not be the case for you of course. You might occupy that kind of sweet spot where you're the one with more assets and income but IHT also isn't a worry.

Also, it's not for you to say whether gay couples feel ownership over CP.

Civil partnership (I would hope) if available to straight couples would feel modern and progressive by taking all that baggage out and being a neutral contract between the couple.

It's interesting, this from chatty is another example of people attributing their own aspects to CP that aren't actually there. CP has connotations of othering, fobbing gay people off, inequality. It's fine to not be bothered about this. But if you have a problem with marriage because of the sexist history (understandable) by the same logic, assuming you're not homophobic which I assume you're not chatty, you should also have a problem with the connotations of CP. The history of the institution is not progressive at all.

Paper marriage register has a box for father only, not mother (this is being changed by moving to electronic records - and we chose to leave this box blank on ours), CP has a box for both father and mother (not sure if this covers two fathers or two mothers though!)

Marriage the contract is verbal and written
CP is written only

Marriage the name for dissolution of the union is divorce, for CP it's called a dissolution order

You can annul a marriage on the grounds of an STI, not so a CP

Adultery can be named as a specific reason for divorce (although adultery within the context of marriage still only means sexual interview with someone of the opposite sex - if one partner cheats with someone of the same sex you cannot petition for divorce on the specific grounds of adultery, although this would of course constitute unreasonable behaviour)

Broadly otherwise there is no difference between civil marriage and civil partnership.

It is a shared mortgage and I'm named beneficiary on pensions( not hard to check or organise).

No I don't speak for gay people re ownership of CP but neither do others inferring that the gay community feel heterosexual couples are muscling in on it.

Not wanting to be stoned in some countries for being unmarried is not a good reason for marriage.

My marriage was a registry office one. Zero religion or being given away, pretty much the vows consisted with confirming there were no legal reasons that we should not marry. Nothing about DH owning me etc. DH then took my name legally.

How is that in any way different to a civil partnership?

Pension nominations can be changed without the beneficiary knowing, and if you're not married this is harder to challenge. Of course you may want that.

Which posts said the gay community as a whole rather than some people in it felt straights were muscling in on CP?

too pension beneficiaries can be changed, as can wills, without the other partner knowing - unmarried couples have less protection under the law to challenge this than married couples

And you don't have the same rights over joint bank accounts as married couples (and as already mentioned all the tax benefits and allowances)

You've said you have more protection than plenty of married couples. I'd be interested to understand in what way?

At a guess I'd say she's the one with more assets? That's the only way really. Would be interested to hear otherwise though.

Surely all these posters belittling "toomanytealights" for her lack of financial protection are merely emphasising the basic inequality of the situation.Where a non-married two-gender couple have less legal/financial rights than either a single-gendered couple in a civil partnership or all married folks. And only one route to change that.....a marriage ceremony (which they feel is not for them for their own personal reasons). Extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples is a positive step for these peoples lives and futures and those of any children. Regardless of how it is perceived by other people.