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)

Thanks for confirming that SinkingFeeling I should know that, I only got married eighteen months ago.

Well said littlemissdynamite

Thanks @midnightaura

That was quite a long post! I had lots to say though.

I would not get married but would have a civil partnership.

I do not give a flying fuck for the views of the smugly conventional - choice is a good thing, and it is fair and right that both hetero and homosexual people have the same options for how they want to present their relationship to society.

Thanks Blue, that's good to hear about the changes going through so mother's names will be on the marriage certificate.

Do you think if the gov't extends CPs they would also extend the definition of adultery? I just remembered (I hope correctly) you can't divorce a wife for having an affair with a woman or a husband for having an affair with a man only if they have an affair with someone of the opposite sex, which is why adtery is not grounds for ending a CP

God alone knows

A couple of friends seem to think it's a halfway house before marriage or some such, that would soothe people who want the legal rights marriage bestows, but without getting married.

I pointed out both partners still have to agree tho, don't they? Its not as if LTR non-marriage somehow "become" civil.partnerships just like that'.

The comments on here about wives being "given" away, obey etc are frankly ridiculous. You sound like old dusty Victorian novels - where on earth do you have to live to be unaware time long ago moved on from having to include all that crap. & that register office ceremonies exist ie not everyone marries in church 🙄

In France we have civil partnerships (PACS)

It's gives cohabiting couples the broadly the same legal and tax status as married couples. Have to be cohabiting, cannot be related (!) and cannot be married or CP with anyone else, anywhere in the world. One of the couple has to be french.

We are protected by legal parts i.e. inheritance as tax here is super high without the CP. We pay more tax, although our situation is unusual, most couples benefit from shared tax benefits, for it's just one of the many types of french taxes has same thresholds for a couple as for one person. Our situation is unusual in younger couples though and often it's younger couples who like the PACS idea, it's practical, we are living together, if one partner passes away due to eating all the gateau, the other doesn't pay inheritance tax.

If I get bumped off by a frenchman, you all know why. The non french half of the couple doesn't qualify for citizenship through marriage with a CP, but it can be used to request family and private life visa, assuming can prove have enough funds etc. So there aren't citizenship rights.

We don't have the same adoption rights, so would be adopting as individuals rather than a couple, but happy to get married if adopting a child together!

The other big attraction is that to end the civil partnership, just send a letter to authorities. No divorce, no delays, no reason or agreement needed. So it can be helpful with assets or, if you don't care about assets, it can save a divorce! It's a stepping stone to marriage or long term committed relationship for many.

Most are ended so that can get married, it's about 50-50 heterosexual to same sex.

It's a really good system to be honest, it doesn't replace marriage on significant things such as citizenship and adoption, but it works well for couples living together who may want to get married in future, or want to commit/benefit from some of the rights given to a cohabiting couple without worrying about divorce drama.

I think a lot of people are missing the point that civil partnerships were introduced as a fudge to appease Christians who believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. When marriage between same sex partners became legal, the government could not resolve the problem of what to do about those who entered civil partnerships as there was no universal solution to the problem , as some people were happy to remain in a civil partnership, whilst others have now legally married . This has led us to the situation we are in now. It will be interesting to see how this is resolved and whether or not civil partnerships are made available to hetrosexual couples

@JustGiveMeTwoMinutes - you use "unreasonable behaviour" to split up rather than "adultery".

In fact I know/met straight divorced people who, while they could have used that, were told by their solicitors that using "unreasonable behaviour" or "two years separation" would be more straight forward in getting their divorce. Part of this is due to the difficulty of getting the other person to admit it, legal procedures that had to be met and proven within certain timescales to fulfill the definition, or the fact both partners had committed it. In the worse cases they had to use "five years separation" as the ex cheated on contested the divorce. In one case the person had had 2 children with a different man but still the ex cheated on refused to divorce her.

For a civil partnership you do not need to say any vows, written by yourself or anyone else.

Your mother's name and occupation are recorded, in a marriage only the father's name and occupation are.

You can dissolve a marriage if at the time you married one of you had a 'communicable venereal disease' so if you have HIV and marry your husband/wife can divorce you at any time.

'What is threatening about other couples having civil partnerships??? confused Nothing, that's what! Like there is nothing to be 'jealous' of'

What is the reason for all the smugness, defensiveness and nastiness then? It has gone way beyond merely 'having an opinion'

@Sunnymeg the government had the choice at the time to abolish civil partnerships by automatically converting them all to marriage, or equalise the law. By doing neither they wouldn't have fallen foul of the Human Rights Act.

I suspect they thought the issue would just go away as all civil partnerships would be changed to marriage. They didn't realise that some same sex couples, that also include men, don't want marriage due to its historic baggage. They also realised equalising the law means they would face opposition from Christian groups who like to meddle in people's lives and have an issue, like some posters here, with opposite sex civil partnerships.

The couple are just attention seeking snowflakes. I heard them on the radio and they couldn't give one coherent reason for wasting court time on this nonsense.

Little how dare you say there is something wrong with me because I don't want to be a wife.

And you're wrong as would others who have contributed on this thread I would enter into a civil partnership even though I don't want to be married.

Other countries manage civil partnerships for all so not sure why we can't.

It is quite intriguing the way vitriolic,lengthy and quite nasty posts are made about this subject from people who would never enter into a civil partnership themselves and wouldn't be affected by anybody else who did.

@JustGiveTwoMinutes I looked at the last figures from the ONS and unreasonable behaviour is the most common grounds for divorce petitions for opposite sex couples by a large margin. So it is unlikely the government will bother changing the definition of adultery to accommodate married partners who have affairs with someone of the same sex.

However if this is a big issue for you and you can come up with valid legal definitions, there is nothing to stop you crowdfunding like Keidan and Steinfeld to take the government to court to help get the law changed.

Ah the old rather tedious snowflakes accusation bandwagon.

Could you not find your own insulting name to label them with.

@laptopdisaster they and their supporters paid their legal costs. Also if people didn't bother protesting by legal (and illegal) means then our elected governments would think they could do what they absolutely like for 5 years. MPs now only come from a small section of society, and many openly ignore their constituents issues unless it gets media attention or courts pass a judgement.

The thread on saying obey recently showed that its making a comeback worryingly. Most women marry in white, in cburch , are given away and become Mrsmansname. If you cannot see why some women want nothing to do with such an jnstitution then you need to think harder.

Anybody care to answer why they want to avoid the misogynistic associations around marriage but are happy with the homophobic associations around civil partnership?

This.

I think that saying "adultery isn't a thing in civil partnerships" isn't quite true. Adultery doesn't apply if it's between two people of the same sex. Quite an assumption to make that any civil partnership will only ever experience same sex affairs?

Maybe they'll change it to gender and you can just identify yourself out of the problem...

Because for me marriage isnt something i want . Several gay couples we know have happily remained CP for similar reasons.

Most women marry in white, in cburch , are given away and become Mrsmansname Actually only one in three marriages in England and Wales have any religious element and you don't have to do any of those things if you don't want to.

I don’t really like the idea that CPs are only really valid in the UK and aren’t necessarily recognised abroad. This means if you’re on holiday somewhere that doesn’t recognise your relationship, your civil partner could be in a hospital without you having access to visitation rights etc.

I know this is oddly specific, but it’s one of the reasons we converted our CP to marriage as we’re a binational couple and we travel a lot so translation of a CP was really hard, especially in the States. Of course plenty of countries still don’t have marriage equality anyway, but for those that do, our marriage “translates” well. A CP is not the equivalent of a “domestic partnership”, “civil union” or PACS elsewhere so can be confusing to explain.

Legally I don't think there is a difference. I'm rather baffled by the whole thing really - can't see why they'd have spent 4 years and a crap load of money fighting about it.

I do not give a flying fuck for the views of the smugly conventional Marriage is still conventional if you give it a different name,