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)

The answer to your question OP is that outside of the symbolic connotations, (which matter to some people and not others, which is fine), the practical differences are:

A) the adultery thing although that’s irrelevant because married couples almost never divorce for adultery

B) the minimum form of the ceremony is slightly different

C) (and this is the only one that matters in practice) marriage is internationally recognised and CP is not. If a couple with a CP travel abroad for work then they may be treated in France as if they have the French equivalent, but in not other countries they’ll be treated as cohabitees and treated however that country’s law treats unmarried cohabitees (up to and including lack of right of residence or criminal sanctions in extreme cases). This isn’t a big deal if you’re not travelling abroad beyond a mini break, and it hasn’t been an issue for gay couples whose marriage isn’t recognised in many countries anyway, but if a heterosexual couple have a CP and then get posted abroad they may need to change to marriage - I assume if the law is changed they’ll keep the “upgrade” process which is very simple.

X-post with silver: obviously if the country you’re travelling does recognise gay marriage then gay couples will have the same motivation to change status.

Wow some of the comments on here are pretty awful. There is nothing wrong with me for not wanting to be a wife either. And yes we all know you can do marriage without the old fashioned misogynistic bits like taking the man’s name and getting given away but a huge amount of people still do all that and that’s why marriage has these connotations to me. If we’d left getting given away and veils and changing surnames in the distant past it would be different. But everyone knows that if I go and have a quickie wedding in a registry office without guests that as soon as anyone finds out they will be congratulating “Mrs Hisname”.

And the relentless comments about men who won’t marry you won’t give you a CP either. My partner is CONSTANTLY asked when he’s going to ask me to marry him but no one ever asks me, the sexist undertones being of course that a) it’s his decision and b) I’m just desperately waiting for him to ask, neither of which are remotely true.

We should have the French system @LuMarie describes.

Everyone I know who is civil partnered refers to themselves as married, and calls their other half their wife or husband. They are basically saying it's a marriage (but did not have the option at the tine)
I imagine they will just close civil partnerships to new couples. Existing ones can remain or convert.
And that will satisfy the law of equality fine.

@SlightAggrandising that's one of the differences between civil partnerships and marriage. The cause for dissolution of a civil partnership cannot be over adultery with anyone regardless of their sex, while you can't divorce someone in marriage due to their adultery of someone with the same sex.

That’s because adultery is still defined as PIV sex. Hillary couldn’t have divorced Bill for his affair with Monica Lewinsky on the grounds of adultery - although if she could demonstrate a “ground rule” of fidelity within their marriage it would constitute unreasonable behaviour.

@burnoutbabe it actually wouldn't, and if you look at other recent government fuck ups in 30 years time it would cause issues.

@blue, the adultery definition is not a big issue for me personally, I was just curious. Thanks for your reply :-)

I imagine the government will simply do away with civil partnerships now. They were only introduced because they weren't ready at the time to introduce gay marriage, now it exists, there is no reason for civil partnerships.

What should end is the presumption of a woman taking the man's surname

Yes. I wasn't necessarily going to change my name when I got married (although DH's name much nicer than mine and I am glad I did) and obviously lots of women keep their maiden names for work. so the presumption is annoying.

For those who say it won’t cost anything to allow civil partnerships for all - this isn’t true. It could cost millions. At the moment, cohabiting couples don’t usually inherit any pension rights when one dies. If lots of cohabiting couples form civil partnerships, they will become entitled to inherit pension rights. Depending how many couples do this, and how far back the pension entitlement is backdated, it could cost millions across the public sector pension schemes. It would also affect private sector schemes.

Not saying that’s a reason not to do it, just pointing out that it’s not cost free!!

'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'

It certainly is

The couple who brought the case have said this morning that Penny Mordant, the minister involved, has given Stonewall a guarantee that CPs will not be abolished for same sex couples. If that's true, it would suggest the way forward would be opening CPs to all

Lotta give it a rest with the jealousy comments or at least explain why you think people are jealous.

The way it was dealt with in Ireland was to give people in CPs the option to convert and just stop offering new ones- so all state documentation on legal rights includes a 'if you are married/in a civil partnership' line, even though there are only a few hundred people in that situation and that's all there ever will be.

So not dissolving existing civil partnerships doesn't mean opening them up.

That pensions comment is one of the most idiotic things I've read during the whole thread.I would already get my partners private pension anyway. It's his money to do as he wishes with

And re state pensions as a reason, seriously! Keeping partners away from money as a reason because they didn't give in and marry.We've paid taxes,NI and into pensions for years. Just because we haven't participated in the right ceremony isn't a reason to resent us having what we have contributed to.

@ChessieFL people who don't want any formal recognition of their relationship won't be getting a civil partnership, so it makes no difference.

@reddressblueshoes does the Irish government have a history of screwing up Irish citizens historically given rights as the British government?

In 30+ years time the British government would randomly decide everyone with a civil partnership converted it to marriage or is dead, and would change laws effecting them.

Minerva, I'm trying to think of a reason for the levels of nastiness and defensiveness around this topic. No one is trying to take marriage away from anyone. I was suggesting that some people may have their noses put out of joint at the thought that opposite sex couples may be given a choice between marriage and CP, a choice that currently married people didn't have. All the sneering about 'marriage lite' is coming from somewhere and that's one explanation

The thing is there is only a very small amount of couples who would civil partner.
I'd probably prefer a French system and I probably won't civil partner as it is seen as something that was brought in as a lesser thing for gay couples. Which would put me off supporting it.
And even if married I can't think when I'd be specifically called his wife.(bar the ceremony). I have a name and can still be introduced as his partner/other half if we like,

Bluebug yes no change for those people. However several people on this thread have said that they would form a civil partnership if it became available to heterosexual couples.

P3ony no need to be so rude. I was simply pointing out that there is a cost involved to changing the law. I wasn’t saying that it’s a good reason not to change the law, simply stating a fact. I do not resent anyone inheriting pension rights.

Civil service pension rights can already be left to a nominated partner (not just a spouse or CP). Same with the death in service payout.

@wheezing - the problems you're pointing out are because society is still sexist, not marriage.

I went to a friends wedding in a town hall, at the end, when congratulating them, the register said something like 'is it still ms x or mrs y?' And everyone in the room burst into laughter simultaneously at the idea of that bride changing her name, and the face she made. Nobody in my friendship circle changed their name on marriage, nobody assumed I changed my name though one or two people asked, nobody in either of our families asked any questions about marriage beforehand despite us being together for nearly a decade and mid-thirties when we did it.

Certain change comes incrementally.
The majority of people who will choose this version of civil partnership will be feminists who oppose the name, it won't offer protection to people who currently have none as it's obviously marriage with another name, and it won't help contribute to all the cultural baggage of marriage some people still practice being eradicated. So it's hard to see it as a victory, for all except a really small number of people who prefer an institution with a homophobic rather than patriarchal history which is in pretty much all other ways identical.

The pensions argument is perfectly valid. I had to produce my marriage certificate and husband's birth certificate for him to inherit my (public sector) pension rights.

Back in 2014 when same sex marriage was legalised, civil partnerships became obsolete and should have been axed. If the government had done the logical thing then this couple wouldn't have wasted millions of taxpayers' money. Yes, I know they paid their own costs, WE paid for the days of wasted court time.

I hope the government pulls the rug from under them and just gets rid of CPs.

goodbyeeee in the Local Government Pension Scheme, cohabitees can only get a pension if they’ve paid into the scheme since 1 April 2008. Anyone who left before that had to be married or in a civil partnership to leave a pension to their partner. Not sure about the civil service scheme or the other public sector schemes but it could be the same in that those who left a while ago may not qualify for a cohabiting partner pension. If this group now form civil partnerships that’s a number of partner pensions that the schemes wouldn’t previously have had to pay.

I think that if CPs are extended to all - fine. I object to some of the comments here re those of us that fail to agree with the White middle class angst of not having the same options as same sex couples. But if they are not abolished, the option to convert to a marriage at a later date should be abolished. You make our choices - you can't then opt to convert to a marriage if marrieds can't convert to a CP. Equality innit.

'But if they are not abolished, the option to convert to a marriage at a later date should be abolished. You make our choices'

I agree with this. It should be one or the other (or neither). The option to 'convert' just fuels this idea that CPs are inferior to marriage