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 CP is a relatively new, mainly legal contract that comes with much less emotional and historical baggage than a marriage.

If two people of any gender/sex want a CP they should be able to have one.

A CP doesn't need (unless you want it to) to have an emotional relationship attached to it. It can be used by any two people who want to provide financial or inheritance stability, simply and without any expectation that they should create a family together (unless that is what they want to do).

Regardless of its unfortunate creation history, It is a useful legal tool that should be available for any two people who require it or have a use for it; and that they should then be able to create the relationship that is most acceptable to them without judgement or prejudice.

LuMarie describes the French system and I would love to have that in the UK.

Why can't we as a society look at this legal challenge as an opportunity to review the whole system not just of marriage, but of how someone becomes your next of kin (using that as a catch all term because I can't think of something better)?

The way the law stands now, your legal 'next of kin' will always be either a) a person you have entered into a romantic relationship with (marriage, civil partnership) or b) your nearest relative.

Is that really how the modern British society works? Does that really reflect a good choice for everyone?

There will be people out there - people we meet all the time on MN - who have terrible relationships with their family. But in the event that they are not married, their mother, their father, is still the person who will inherit their estate and make medical decisions in difficult circumstances.

Why can't we use this as an opportunity to look at something like the French system where anyone can nominate any other adult as their 'next of kin', be they their husband, their cousin, their aunt, or their best friend.

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

I want to avoid the misogynistic associations around marriage. Like many people, I will do this by going through a statutory marriage and making our "marriage" what we want it to be. People are trying to reclaim marriage from the misogynistic associations, that's a conversation that is seen on MN all the time.

Similarly, yes, there are indeed homophobic associations around civil partnerships. But equally, CPs can be reclaimed too, just like marriage is being reclaimed.

There is no other option in the UK to tie yourself legally to another person other than marriage or civil partnership. Anyone who wishes to protect themselves legally has to do one of these to, whether they have an issue with the associations or not. All we as a society can do, if we have an issue with the historic connotations of either practice, is try and redefine it for ourselves in the 21st century and slowly reclaim it from those connotations.

Or, you know, my previous post, and allow people to enter into a new, non-romantic, non-sexual, purely legal contract between two people that has no historic baggage whatsoever...

I can see an argument for something like the French Pacte Civile but that's not what a civil partnership is.

Why can't we use this as an opportunity to look at something like the French system where anyone can nominate any other adult as their 'next of kin', be they their husband, their cousin, their aunt, or their best friend

I thought in France (and Germany) you HAD to leave at least some of your estate to your kids regardless of whether you had a good (or any) relationship with them. Is that not the case? So it doesn't really matter who you choose as your next of kin?

One thing that interests me. I understand there will be no vows, sexual references or monogamy written into the CP. Dissolution will be on grounds of unreasonable behaviour rather than adultery. In which case, how would infidelity be classed as unreasonable behaviour, if it was never part of the contract?

Quite possibly, running, I haven't read the full ins and outs. But inheritance isn't the only thing a 'next of kin' gets or can do, so there is still an argument for changing who you chose.

No, a CP isn't a civil pact at all, but for some people it feels a little closer to that than a marriage does,

Extra layers of legal status are not cost free. Every time status matters in the public and private sphere - immigration, benefits, parental orders, shared parental leave, tax, inheritance etc etc - there will now be an extra option to take account of. It is a shame the government didn't spend the last two years working out the difference in cost between introducing a new separate legal status on top of the existing secular marriage in a registry office and abolishing civil partnership, so that the decision could have been evidence-based, instead of just telling the Supreme Court they wanted to 'wait and see' for a bit longer.

Angsting about the 'misogynous connotations' of the institution of marriage is a bit of a first world problem when we have so many other more important calls on our public finances.

I think choice is a good thing. I have never wanted to be married or a spouse so a CP would be ideal.

Good idea Thurlow to see this as an opportunity for change and making things better for more people, rather than an opportunity for sneering and name calling

Well it will be interesting to see what happens if this change takes place. It could result in even greater marketisation of weddings, as the wedding industry will need to up its game - and possibly an upsurge in take up of full on 'church' weddings with all the trimmings.

There's a good book , well worth reading, by two Economist writers - called 'God is Back' - about the global resurgence of all faiths - it talks about how the extraordinary take up of all the various different branches of Christianity in the USA - is largely down to the absence of an established church and the need to compete in a 'faith' marketplace. I wonder how the UK's wedding 'market' will respond when lots of people can opt for a civil partnership instead.

The CP is a relatively new, mainly legal contract that comes with much less emotional and historical baggage than a marriage.

Not for same sex couples it doesn't. There is a lot of emotional and historical baggage (just not as historical as marriage). It was not that many years ago that homosexuality was illegal in the country. It took a long time for same sex couples to be accepted (a lot still have issues) and a lot of fighting to get any form a legal status for their relationships.

Lets not forget that the only reason we have CPs is because religious groups would not allow same sex marriage because they do not agree with it. CPs are 'marriage-lite' but in the sense that same sex couples were not allowed to have a marriage, so had to 'make do' with a lesser title to appease religion.

It has taken a lot for same sex couples to even come close to the rights heterosexual couples have and they still do not have the same rights - I know one couple who will not 'get married' because they want to have a church wedding and they are not able to.

I have no real objection to heterosexual couples having the option, but the easiest thing would be for the government to pass an Act to recognise existing CPs but to prevent any new CPs being entered into now the reason for the discrepancy has passed. That will keep everyone equal.

But in the event that they are not married, their mother, their father, is still the person who will inherit their estate and make medical decisions in difficult circumstances.

Not necessarily.If the person is sensible and has a Will and a Lasting Power of Attorney (which is always recommended and especially if you are just cohabiting) then you can leave your estate to whomever you like and appoint whomever you like to make your medical decisions for you. It is only those who do not bother to take any legal steps to protect their partner who end up with problems.

how would infidelity be classed as unreasonable behaviour

It is still expected to be the union of one person with another and fidelity is implicit.

Adultery by law is sex between two people of the opposite sex and can only be used as grounds in divorce by the innocent party. For example, a wife cannot divorce her husband on adultery if he had sex with another man (that is not adultery by law), but that would be unreasonable behaviour. Adultery is difficult in the same way that a wife cannot divorce her husband on the grounds of her own adultery.

CPs can't have adultery as a grounds as they were intended to be for same sex couples and the thought was they were more likely to cheat with another person of the same sex and so could not legally commit adultery.

A civil partnership sounds similar to "getting married at the JP's" in the U.S. It is a non religious, basic, informal ceremony performed by a judge (of a lower court) known as a Justice of the Peace. It's quick, inexpensive, and used when people are in a hurry and/or want all the legal rights of being married minus the pomp and circumstance.

@Figmentofmyimagination Justin Greening, former Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, produced a report on the impact of extending civil partnerships to opposite sex couples but due to certain MPs in the cabinet being religious they scrapped the report.

I'm doing some brief research into this at work, but (not very surprising) coincidence and first review of other jurisdiction which have a dual system of legally recognising relationships, so marriage and civil unions, domestic partnerships or civil partnerships for couples of any sex seem to include:

Netherlands
Portugal
France
Belgium
Luxembourg
Andorra
Greece
Gibraltar
Malta
Estonia
Isle of Man
Brazil
Switzerland
New Zealand
South Africa
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Nevada
New York

That's a pleasingly long list. So it's hardly as if the request for UK civil partnerships is something novel and exciting.

There have been many accusations at the 'smug married' in this thread being 'jealous' or 'angry' from those who wish to see CP for heterosexual couples. For the life of me I can't understand where these accusations are founded. Most of us questioning this idea are not remotely either. We simply can't see the point of it. ! It will cost a fortune (as all changes of legislation do) without actually providing anything more for heterosexual couples than that which already exists through civil marriage.
It seems from a number of posts on here that people have made a lot of assumptions about civil marriage that aren't actually based in fact.

1. Religious connotations.

There are none. It is actively NOT permitted. Not even the music is allowed to have any religious overtones.

1. Vows to 'obey'. No, none of that either. You write your own if you like. With the only part being the contracting declaration that you wish to be joined together.

1. Giving away. Nope. None of that required if you don't want it.

1. Big expensive ceremony with lots of people /white dresses.

Again not required. £125 in my registry office. The two people getting married and a couple of strangers off the street if you like , to act as witnesses.

1. You have to take his name. (This was actually posted yesterday!). No you don't. You can keep your own. Him take yours, you take his or join them together. No rules.

So if the old misogyny of 'obeying' and the patrichy of 'giving away' have long since been removed for those who don't want it. I cannot see what the point is.

The sole difference that I can see at present between marriage and cp is having both contracting parties parents names on the register , the name 'husband and wife' and signing a 'schedule' rather than a 'register'. These are obviously important issues for some (but in comparison to the entire number of cohabiting couples) very small and nuanced indeed.
In fact I would hasten a guess that the people refusing to enter into a marriage on principle of these issues are not the people who are currently horribly financially vulnerable at being SAHP or working part time in low income, with no rights to the house or pension.

I think this is really barking up the wrong tree. The people we should be looking to protect are not those having a ideological pop at the semantics of marriage, but the hundreds of thousands of women in this country who have had children to men who REFUSE to marry them for fear of losing their assets. Assets amassed by women doing all the childcare /home-care that allows them to earn in the way they do.

CP is not going to help them one jot. A man who doesn't want to marry and share his 'property/pension/money is not going to change his mind and ask his SO to be his Civil Partner instead. As this will confer the same rights that he is trying to avoid through marriage.

That is where the new legislation is needed. To protect vulnerable parents who give up their earning potential without ANY legal protection under a mythical belief that they are somehow covered by non-existent common law marriage.

font for me the issue is that I don't want to enter the institution that is "marriage" or make a public declaration or have a ceremony of any kind. You might not think that's important but we're not all the same. Which is why choice is, generally, a good thing.

I take your point about protecting vulnerable women but that's a whole other debate and not straightforward. If you're suggesting that co-habitees should attain automatic rights after X amount of years for example the result will be forcing co-habitees that do not want to create a legal relationship for very good reasons into one. I'd prefer to have an opt in system which is why widening choice is a good thing - but I agree it needs to be done alongside a lot more education.

For my sister's civil partnership she spent a very long time finding readings and muddy that referred to no religion and no martiage or wedding but were solemn enough to mark the day she legally joined her partner in union.

She has not converted to a marriage because she feels she has had her day. She doesn't want another anniversary, she had her day in 2012, why another in 2018? And as the law was very very clear she could have neither a marriage nor any reference to marriage in her ceremony, she is very keen to keep her civil partnership.

For those of you who are saying they are obsolete and should all have just been converted to marriage? Sod off. It was a deeply moving and meaningful day. But my sister is not married, does not consider herself married. Does not want to (now) marry. But in 2012 she did, and was not allowed.

She's all for extending cp to heterosexual couples fwiw. It is cheaper (only one member of staff), has dissolution rather than divorce. But it also helps to further remove the "different, not equal" status. E.g. applying for her daughter's passport "were your parents married at the time of your birth? " every other form says married or civil partnered..... Not that one eh?

Oh ffs she found music not muddy

'For those of you who are saying they are obsolete and should all have just been converted to marriage? Sod off'

Well said

In fact I would hasten a guess that the people refusing to enter into a marriage on principle of these issues are not the people who are currently horribly financially vulnerable at being SAHP or working part time in low income, with no rights to the house or pension.

I refuse to marry on principle and I earn a shit load more than my partner and, for what it's worth, I earn a shitload full stop.

So just pack in the stereotypes - they are unhelpful and bloody irritating.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why CP remotely bothers anyone. If you want to be married, be married. If you want to have a CP, have one. If you want to live together with no ties at all, do so. But do so from an informed base, knowing the pros and cons of each one

and it's "hazard a guess", not "hasten a guess". Pah.

Goodbyeeee I am trying to understand your reasoning. -although the 'public declaration ' I admit I struggle with. You, your partner, two 'stranger' witnesses and a registrar doesn't sound very public. Especially if you don't tell anyone but your partner. But why does making a 'declaration of wanting to be united with the person you live concern you Can you explain that one a bit ? . I do absolutely understand the ceremony bit. I didn't look forward to that because I don't like being the centre of attention . Would have been much happier just signing something.I am genuinely interested. Because I agree we are all different and would like to understand a different perspective.
Also 'marriage ' what is it that you don't like. ? I had assumed it was the giving away and obeying that were in the old marriage service but no longer relevant .
(I certainly wouldn't have wanted in mine either neither would my husband for that matter).

The opt in method is surely what both Marriage and CP (currently for gay couples) already is. You can only opt in to both. My concern is for (mostly) women who have found themselves with a man who holds all the purse strings both now and in the future and will never agree to opt in to anything.
something along the lines of cohabiting over 12 months and a child.
It may have the added side effect of men taking a more proactive role with their own fertility if the consequences are not just a baby that you can walk away from and avoid CMS but will also have to lose a percentage of your pension and home.

*I refuse to marry on principle and I earn a shit load more than my partner and, for what it's worth, I earn a shitload full stop.

So just pack in the stereotypes - they are unhelpful and bloody*

What a horrible smug self satisfied post. Lucky lucky you. You currently occupy a position that applies to less than 15% of the current women bringing up children in cohabiting relationships in the uk..
You are in the happy and secure position to make that choice.

My point did not refer to you. !
As I fail to see how some who earns 'shed loads' fits into this statement from my last post.

That is where the new legislation is needed. To protect vulnerable parents who give up their earning potential
without ANY legal protection under a mythical belief that they are somehow covered by non-existent common law marriage.

@Fontofnoknowledge you are arguing two different points.

Extending civil partnerships to opposite sex couples is just amending existing legislation not creating a new one. The actual original legislation has been amended at least once already. Plus, as I stated in a previous post, government research has already been done on its impact. In otherwords the government has already spent money on it but is refusing to act due to party reasons, hence the court case to force them to act.

On the other hand making legislation to protect couples that cohabit would cost a lot more as proper research would need to be conducted on the impact on different age groups and blended families. Remember plenty of older couples where one or both have assets want them to go to their adult children and grandchildren, not their partner's.

Incidentally some religious leaders think that everyone should have a civil partnership under the law, then if they want a marriage have a ceremony afterwards in a place of worship with this certificate. So unless you have the certificate you cannot get married. This would stop women whether they are Jerry Hall or a poor Muslim lady being conned into thinking they have legal rights, when they are not actually married.