To not really understand the difference between marriage and civil partnership?

[winterwonderly]

Without wanting to come across like I'm totally dense, I'm sort of struggling to figure out what all the fuss is about heterosexual couples now being able to have a civil partnership. When you get down to the nitty gritty of marriage and civil partnerships, aren't they really sort of the same thing?? Why would you decide on one over the other? And is it going to get to the stage when you're scared to call so and so someone's husband/wife because you don't know if they're married or in a civil partnership?

Civil partnership is a brand new social institution, based on two people coming together as equal partners; it has none of the history of marriage that a lot of people find objectionable eg. Women as chattels passed from father to husband. Historically marriage was often (mostly?) an arrangement between families whereby land and money were secured for future generations, it often had very little to do with the two people involved being in love (especially the woman). Many modern weddings still carry on traditions which to many people are symbols of things we can't subscribe to - father giving the bride away, wearing white, throwing the bouquet to the bridesmaid. Yes you can ditch all of those but you're still signing up to an institution that has inequality between men and women woven into its fabric. I'd love to have the security and "officialness" (don't think that's a word) of marriage without all the baggage.

Pigsnickers I appreciate what you have written but honestly just because that's what marriage used to mean does not mean that's how people view it today. You can choose to include tradition elements or not that's up to the people getting married, it's not compulsory.

Plus most civil partnerships would have some of these elements too, they are not just specific to a marriage, they are specific to the event/party, which many people include part of their civil partnership.

I honestly do not get the angst over the couple in question spending so long fighting for the right to a civil partnership they sound like, look like and both offer the same thing to me.

You see I think that's where I'm struggling to understand it. I'm married, as are a lot of my friends, and I think that all of us feel equal to our partners and have partners who feel that we're their equals and not that they own us. I feel that marriage has moved on from what it was many many years ago.

Surely civil partnership is just what people might also call a 'modern marriage' but aren't we now confusing things with having some people calling themselves married and others calling themselves civil partners, but essentially they're all the same thing??

The fundamental difference is that marriage is available to everyone, but CP is not.

winterwonderly, it sounds like if somebody want rights you would force them into your religious club, called marriage?

They are very identical similar in terms of rights except for the MOST important difference. One is MARRIAGE the other ISN'T. What past of that is confusing?

@Walkingdeadfangirl are you saying the only difference is that one is religious and one isn't? Because surely heterosexual couples have been able to get married in a civil ceremony for years which has no religious connotations?

And I understood it that civil partnerships were brought it for same sex couples
to afford them most (but not all) of the same rights of married couples until such time as legislation could be passed to allow same sex couples to be married.

So I'm struggling to understand why heterosexual couples want to take a step backwards to have less legal rights in a civil partnership than in a marriage. E.G adultery is not recognised as a reason for divorce in a civil partnership but it is in a marriage. If it's just about the religious element, why not get married with a civil ceremony?

I could give my notices, go down to my local library with my partner and find two strangers to be our witnesses, and come out with a piece of paper giving us both legal protection within our relationship. I don't have to change my surname or use Mrs or tell my friends and family or make any fuss whatsoever. But if later on I find out he has been screwing around, I can divorce him. This is marriage. Civil partnership is legally exactly the same except I can't divorce him for adultery. People seem to get 'getting married' confused with 'having a wedding' where you are free to have the whole being given away by one man to another and signing your thank you cards as Mr and Mrs if that's what you so desire. So many people say it's just a piece of paper- it will be whether you have a marriage or a CP, but marriage at least gives you an extra get out clause if you need it. Of course, if you are both happy to be in an open relationship, CP would be better as one of you can't then divorce the other for adultery if you change your mind.

CP was introduced by the Labour government in the early 2000s. They wanted to bring in same-sex marriage, but Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who are both VERY religious, decided that the churches and the right-wing tabloids weren’t ready for it.

So they introduced CP as a sort of secular ‘marriage-lite’ for same-sex couples with all the legal rights and obligations but without the cultural and religious baggage of marriage.

So civil partnerships are the modern form of marriage because they allow a partner to be unfaithful without any consequences? The other partner has no sense of security, despite what the couple might have built up together even if their wasn't an even split in who brought in what money and who did what amount of childcare. Is this really what this couple have been fighting for?? To have some legal ties but have no real sense of responsibility to the partner you made a lifelong commitment to?

@BonnieF I have to disagree with you as I don't think the difference is a religious one. Heterosexual couples have been able to get married in a civil ceremony for years and this has no religious connotations at all. But they're still married. And that's very different to them being in a civil partnership.

heterosexual couples have been able to get married in a civil ceremony for years which has no religious connotations?
Its not just religious connotations, its historical, societal, cultural and the list goes on everything about them.

The real question is, why are you refusing to allow couples to protect them selves if they dont accept your perception of 'marriage'?

But I feel that's all just people's perception. Some people view marriage as meaning that the man owns his wife, the majority don't, and there's certainly nothing in law to say that that's the case. Times move on, many years ago marriage looked a lot different, but as with lots of things surely we're moving in the right direction to a more equal and diverse society. Marriage doesn't look the same now as it did many years ago, in just the same way that equality in the workplace is improving, the gender pay gap is decreasing etc etc.....

I'm all for same sex couples making the same commitment and having the same rights as heterosexual couples, and I have close friends who this affects.

What I can't get my head around is that same sex couples wanted the same rights as married couples which I completely understand and agree with. They got civil partnerships (as an interim measure until they could change the law to allow them to marry) which afford many of the same legal rights as marriage but crucially not the fact that they can dissolve the partnership due to adultery. Some heterosexual couples then felt they were making a stand by saying that they wanted civil partnerships too. Nobody enters into a lifelong commitment thinking they may separate in the future but unfortunately it happens, and I can see many people wondering why on earth they chose a civil partnership over a marriage, just because it used to look a lot different years ago. But then I guess it will work in some people's favour too.

You surely don't know if anybody is in a relationship i.e. a partner or not.

It's all explained on the other thread by a registrar.

But I feel that's all just people's perception.

So why do you have a problem with it if you believe its just a difference perception? Why are you enforcing 'marriage' if its just perception?

So if someone in a contact wants to get unpartnered, how do they do it if they can't use adultery as a reason? What reason can they give, or do they just say "I've changed my mind"? Or can't you get unpartnered at all?

So if someone in a contact wants to get unpartnered, how do they do it
Singlenotsingle What are you talking about:? The process for ending a civil partnership is very clearly set out in law.

Having been on mumsnet for a few years, i hope that the idea of something that gives the protection of marriage without the label, which some people see as religious or about seeing women as property, will be beneficial. I hope it will reduce the cases where women get left with nothing having become a sahm to someone they are not married to - as they at least habe the choice to opt for CP

The French have a system which I think is called PACS which is like CP for everyone

Ah walkingdead so you don't know what it is either? Don't worry dear, I'll research it..

Single l wondered that too and was about to ask because.... yer know..... I didn't know the rules were different for CPs than marriage for ending it.
Shall we have our public execution for not knowing this together holding hands?

@Singlenotsingle Civil partnerships can be dissolved via the courts like marriages. However adultery cannot be used as a reason as adultery can only legally happen between couples of the opposite sex. The reasons are listed here - www.gov.uk/end-civil-partnership/grounds-for-ending-a-civil-partnership

@walkingdeadgirlfan ‘It sounds like if somebody want rights you would force them into your religious club, called marriage?’

My marriage wasn’t religious thank you very much. I thought that was the point of a civil service?

What we would call adultery in a divorce would just be classed under unreasonable behaviour in a civil partnership (as monogamy is reasonable in any union).

The reason you cannot use adultery as grounds in a civil partnership is purely because CPs are only for same sex couples. Adultery is between two people of the opposite sex and they assumed that for a same sex couple the person would cheat with a person of the same sex, so it is not legally adultery. That works with marriage too - you cannot divorce your spouse on the grounds of adultery if the affair is with a person of the same sex.

@Mismatched - you still call it a service. There is still the connotation of a marriage service.