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

[supersop60]

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)

but aren’t civil partnerships steeped in homophobia? ... don’t really see that that’s any better than the misogyny of marriage in the past.

Very valid point RiverTam.

You can divorce due to adultery, but you can’t disolve a civil partnership because of it. So essentially marriage recognises monogamy and civil partnerships don’t.

Most of the reasons given for why people don’t like marriage are actually things to do with traditional bits wedding ceremonies, which you don’t have to do. Just rock up to a registry office and sign a legal contract. You don’t have to change your name, you don’t have to wear a ring etc etc.

No one has been required to ‘obey’ for decades.

Civil partnerships are rooted in homophobia, same sex couples should have got the right to marriage in the first place instead of the half way house of a civil partnership.

I thought civil partnerships were a bad idea in the first place
Sort of ‘marriage-lite’ for gay people
They shouldn’t have brought CP in at all
Surely it should have been marriage for everyone

Civil partnerships shouldn’t be legal anymore now everyone can get married.

As said a million times already marriage doesn’t have to involve a big white dress, church and promises to obey nor do you have to be given away. I had a civil ceremony and granted the big white dress but not the religious elements.

If they wanted the same rights as married couples, bloody get married. My friends had a civil ceremony and as soon as they could they got married once it was legal because for them they wanted equality and a civil partnership was not equal in their eyes.

In ireland when marriage equality came in they removed the option of civil partnership: the government may well choose to do the same in the light of this ruling.

Legally they're more or less identical: marriage has a lot of historical patriarchal baggage all of which has been stripped out from the legal side of it, some of which persists in the cultural and optional side of it, an civil partnership has much more recent homophobic baggage, which persists in the legal construct- basically, adulatory isn't a consideration because gay sex isn't 'proper' sex.

A form of civil partnership as exists in other European countries which is a lower level of legal protection and easier to get out of light make sense but that was never what existing civil partnership was about, it was all about denying gay people full rights.

A civil partnership is just marriage by another name. Hopefully they'll get rid of them now as they serve no purpose unless you're the very speshulist of snowflakes

The problem of getting rid of civil partnerships is that would cease to recognise the thousands of same sex couples still in them. Some of these couples don't want to get married and they aren't all young or "snowflakes" as some posters like to call them.

I think this is all going to be. Wet interesting for the 'I don't believe in marriage because ... ' brigade.

Because I am not religious (you are ALREADY NOT PERMITTED ANY FORM OF RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS CONNOTATIONS AT A CIVIL WEDDING. ) !!

I don't want to 'obey ' anyone. (You can right your own vows)

I don't want to be given away (Then don't be - it's not required)

I don't like lots of people and we can't afford it. (Then make it just the two of you and a couple of strangers as witnesses. £125 mid week registry - all the same legal rights as the full works)

I don't want to share my wealth and belongings with my child's other parent.... now.. we might be getting somewhere !!
How are you going to get out of that if the 'Civil Partnership comes in ??

Imagine the conversation... (Female partner) Now we have baby, I would really like to get married. My career has taken a hit due to mat leave and taking time off to look after baby. The house is in your name and I'm reliant on you for my income.. (Male partner)
"I'm sorry darling, I really love you and baby but I come from divorced parents and just can't go through the marriage thing. I just don't believe in it. I am really committed to you though.... (FP)
" Oh I understand that darling, of course I do but now the government has bought in CP , it's not 'marriage' but a sign of your commitment. "
(MP) Oh - really, like marriage but not marriage... will my assets still remain all mine. ? Pension, bank accounts, House ?
(FP) Yes, isn't it wonderful. Just like marriage but not called marriage.
(MP).... ahmmm ... yes... great.. let me think about that...for 25 yrs or so..

All utter unrealistic bollocks.

I think like a previous poster said there is some difference between how a civil partnership and a marriage is treated in terms of monogamy and the romantic/sexual nature of the partnership and how it can be dissolved.

With impeccable timing just last month DP and I reluctantly booked a statutory wedding to get the legalities sorted and now they've introduced civil partnerships, which we would have much more happily gone for!

It's an utterly pointless position to think that a civil partnership is any different, day to day, than a marriage.

Marriage is only as misogynist as the people in it.

However, if keeping civil partnerships means more people are legally protected if they separate, then we should let it stay.

I think the only issue is if you move to or travel to countries that don't recognise civil partnerships as a thing.

That should read NO .. your assets will be shared 'Just like marriage ' the entire point of the court case.

As the major legal difference seems to be related to monogamy (or lack of) I wonder how couples choosing a CP over a marriage will be regarded socially.

I have no problem with non-monogamy if that is what both parties of a couple want but from talking to friends it is seen as a very big deal.

It's the term of husband and wife I object to. Do you have to have a ceremony for the civil thing or can you just fill in forms like birth certificates. If not why not?

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

I actually can't believe this is the level of understanding about what a marriage is. You are aware that people don't have to get married religiously aren't you? You must have heard of civil marriage surely.
Not everyone gets married in church or mosque or synagogue. Their marriages are still legally binding

@Thurlow. They have not introduced civil partnerships for straight couples. The ruling was simply that it breached the couple's human rights not to be able to have one. The government could ignore the ruling - unlikely but possible. Or they could move to change the law to allow straight couples to form cps. or they could abolish cps.

A wedding and a marriage can be whatever the couple themselves want it to be.

On the other hand despite getting married in Scotland my marriage became a civil partnership the second I got off the plane in Belfast.

I know they're not in now, I just found the timing ironic

As someone who doesn't really fancy a 'marriage' or having a 'husband' I preferred that CP's bore more resemblance to the French civil pact - I would like a way for anyone to be able to name anyone else as their legal next of kin, inheritor etc in a way that is completely separate from romantic relationships.

And before anyone carries on with the whole 'marriage is what you make of it' we are getting married, without telling anyone who doesn't need to know and in the cheapest, quickest statutory ceremony avaliable, and won't be calling each other husband and wife. Doesn't mean I wouldn't much prefer to simply be able to legally name DP - or my friend, or my cousin, or my aunt or whoever I want - as my legal next of kin etc instead.

Which a CP resembled a little more than a marriage.

'The problem of getting rid of civil partnerships is that would cease to recognise the thousands of same sex couples still in them'

Well, indeed. I would be fuming if I was in that position

If marriage is so marvellous and totally equal and non sexist, then crack on and enjoy yours. Not everyone feels the same. There has been so much prickliness around this topic every time it comes up. Other people's right to have a CP if they choose affects your marriage not one jot. If you think that CPs are in some way inferior to marriage well that's your problem

If marriage is so marvellous and totally equal and non sexist, then crack on and enjoy yours.

Thankfully many people do!

Whilst adultery is not a reason for divorce under civil partnerships, that is more that adultery is strictly defined as PIV sex and could not be so defined for gay couples.
However of course adultery would come under unreasonable behaviour so Its captured there.
.

However, if keeping civil partnerships means more people are legally protected if they separate, then we should let it stay.

or they could just get... married?

Other people's right to have a CP if they choose affects your marriage not one jot

I know, it baffles we when some people get so wound up about people wanting them instead of marriage, it has no effect on marriage at all!

Genuine question, why are people so bothered that something which already exists for same sex partnerships, which will cost pretty much nothing to institute for heterosexual couples (a minor tweak in some legislation), might happen?

Not entirely sure but I think for marriage only the father’s name is needed but in a CP both father and mother are named.

eveninghare I entirely agree. However, if keeping that option open means some people will take up that legal protection rather than have none at all, I'd rather keep it.