Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to ask what's the difference between Marriage and Civil Partnership?

186 replies

supersop60 · 27/06/2018 18:42

Following the High Court ruling that the heterosexual couple may now have a civil partnership. I listened to an interview with them, and I can't see what the legal difference is. (not talking about ceremonies, venues etc here - that's all optional anyway)

OP posts:
horriblegandma · 27/06/2018 18:43

Civil partnership is non religion based, non misogynistic whilst according the same rights.

Sounds ideal!

Original poster
supersop60 · 27/06/2018 18:44

But so would marriage in a registry office. What is misogynistic about marriage? - serious question.

OP posts:
KitanaKay · 27/06/2018 18:45

I find it a bit ridiculous. Civil partnership is redundant now that gay people have thankfully got the right to marry.

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 27/06/2018 18:45

Marriage is only as misogynistic as you want it to be these days.

I can't see the difference.

laurely · 27/06/2018 18:46

I think in simple terms it’s religious versus non religious . Marriage is a sacrament , a civil partnership isn’t . The same way a naming ceremony isn’t a baptism .

horriblegandma · 27/06/2018 18:46

Gosh, where to start?
Woman in white, " given away", obey, man and wife - yes much has changed but many of us do not want a ceremony steeped in religion and the oppression of women.

RandomMess · 27/06/2018 18:47

You don't become someone's wife

horriblegandma · 27/06/2018 18:48

And each to their own.

My DP was strongarmed into a church wedding first time round and he strongly believes that tainted the whole marriage from the start.

horriblegandma · 27/06/2018 18:48

And for some people, they do not want to be a " wife" or a " husband".

AsAProfessionalFekko · 27/06/2018 18:48

Couples who dont want to get married can ensure that they have the rights afforded to married couples - pensions, inheritance etc.

Bit sure if you have to be a couple to do this or if, say a brother and sister can do it if they lived together (as siblings) and wanted to ensure if one died the other could keep the home abd have rights to the pension

x2boys · 27/06/2018 18:48

but lots of us dont have a ceremoney steeped in religion,and lots of women arnt given away ,wear white or promise to obey but still got married .

Original poster
supersop60 · 27/06/2018 18:49

As I said, I'm not talking about the ceremony. The wearing of white, giving away, vows etc are all optional. Traditional, yes, but not a legal requirement.
Legally - what is different?

OP posts:
horriblegandma · 27/06/2018 18:50

Legally?

Nothing.

Just a different mindset. I love the idea of being civil partnered but loathe the idea of marriage. Bit daft I know but there you go!

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 27/06/2018 18:52

lots of us dont have a ceremoney steeped in religion,and lots of women arnt given away ,wear white or promise to obey but still got married

I sure as hell didn't!

And I don't see why being someone's wife is any different to being someone's partner or girlfriend.

RiverTam · 27/06/2018 18:52

@horriblegandma but aren’t civil partnerships steeped in homophobia? As they only came int

olderthanyouthink · 27/06/2018 18:52

I think legally it doesn't acknowledge the sexual component of the relationship so you can divorce for adultery.

But I'm not a lawyer and might be wrong

laurely · 27/06/2018 18:52

Legally nothing different that I know of .

olderthanyouthink · 27/06/2018 18:53

Can't divorce for adultery*

FlyingElbows · 27/06/2018 18:53

I got married in black trousers and a card, nobody gave me away and there was zero religious element. Hell will freeze over before I "obey" anyone. It's the 21st century, ffs, and absolutely ridiculous that this utter horseshit about what is required when you get married is still being peddled. Here of all places!

RiverTam · 27/06/2018 18:53

Into existence because marriage was denied to gay people? I don’t really see that that’s any better than the misogyny of marriage in the past.

Mrsemcgregor · 27/06/2018 18:53

I believe it’s easier to dissolve than a divorce? I might be wrong though.

MissusGeneHunt · 27/06/2018 18:53

Delighted about the court ruling today. Might push for proactive government intervention. Great comment by Tatchell as well. (BBC app article refers).

ForalltheSaints · 27/06/2018 18:55

I think it should be marriage only. What should end is the presumption of a woman taking the man's surname. You should be allowed to both retain your birth names, both take the man's surname, or the woman's, or both surnames as one couple I know have done.

Hadjab · 27/06/2018 18:56

“The differences between civil partnerships and marriages explained. Civil partnerships were introduced in the UK for same-sex couples to legally unite in something like a marriage, but without some of the same legal rights. They were essentially introduced as an interim measure before equal marriage was approved.”

ltk · 27/06/2018 18:56

Civil partnership was all about homophobia. I wouldn't want to be part of an institution with that history if I could avoid it.