Hooray ! At last Civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. So what are those who don't believe in marriage going to make of that.

[Fontofnoknowledge]

Just seen this is going to come into law. AIBU thinking that all those (mostly but not exclusively) men , who 'don't believe in marriage ' - will now have to think of another excuse to keep their assets from their partners ..

It meets both cases @bananafish81 outlined for me. Boo to the patriarchy and also boo to admin/ family/ financial headache!

All said and done , I really don't care as long as there is a mechanism for the vast majority of women who are cohabiting , with children from the union - to have some form of financial protection.
Call it what you like , call it a Marriage/CP/Conscious coupling if that is what floats your boat it's all the same.

Basically, if you have children and are economically disadvantaged by doing so , whilst your partner can squirrel away the goodies in his name - it matters not a jot what you do. As long as you do something,ideally BEFORE making babies.
Now there is CP there is absolutely not a leg to stand on if children are on the agenda. No more 'I don't believe' nonsense.

If a man won't marry you OR contract a CP - he is a knob who is not a safe bet for fatherhood.

(This is relevant ONLY to lower earners and those intending to be SAHM)

Spot on, OP, but not just for low earners or SAHMs but also those where all the assets are in the guy's name.

Those types of men though still won't get a cp. And women will still keep having kids with them and being left alone.

I imagine it's just as easy "not to believe" in cp as it is "not to believe" in marriage. And whilst their are women prepared to live their lives like a bad romance (I dont need a piece of paper, he loves me and the kids) or (I cant ask him to marry me, it would be wrong and Im sure I'll get the ring any day now) the whole sorry situation will keep occurring.

....there are women...

Similarly easy to disagree with a cohabitation agreement apparently

(although I suspect a minority of people actually know they even exist)

Plus you know, common law. If you already think that protects you, the number of variations on the marriage contract that are available to you doesn't matter much.

@PaulDacrreRimsGeese

You do know there's no such thing as a 'common law' marriage...right?
Please say you do/that there is some sarcasm in your post I haven't picked up on...

I do indeed and that's entirely my point. People who think they have legal protection as cohabitants have no more incentive to have a CP than to marry.

And may now believe that CP is what they presumed common law to be.

Given that marriage doesn't require rings or name changing, I'll never follow the logic of people who use these sorts of things as reasons not to marry. And I definitely don't understand why, if they're the only things that put you off, you'd need CP instead, given that you don't need them for either. Makes no sense.

With that said, there are too many women refusing to protect themselves for silly, fallacious and non-existent reasons, so if CP sorts that out for some of them, it'll be worth it.

I don't think, though, that it will make a huge difference overall because my perception of this is that it's generally (remember, generally) men refusing to marry because they don't want a legal commitment. (Will all the anti-marriage, anti patriarchy warriors please explain why, if marriage is so patriarchal, so many men refuse to do it?) The "piece of paper" and "don't need to prove our love" nonsense, which many women regurgitate because it's more palatable than the truth, will still endure.

@AynRandTheObjectivist it seems it's literally about pleasing other people

Some posters have said THEY would have been fine with having a civil marriage with no rings and no party or name changing. But that friends and family would be pissed off if they'd not been invited to their marriage, or they'd feel judged for not changing their name or wearing a ring

And that because family would perceive a CP as an administrative thing, they wouldn't get pissed off at not being invited to the ceremony

I find that baffling, but I have different friends and family!

I found that totally weird too. The kind of person who gets sniffy and judgey because of how you do marriage isn't generally the kind of person who would be happy with you being unmarried your entire life, especially if kids are involved. And wasn't there one poster who said most of their family was dead anyway? So who exactly did they need to please, if not themselves?

If you seriously want to marry, and the only reason you're not is because you can't cope with Auntie Mabel being sniffy about you keeping your maiden name, you probably have other issues that you need to work through.

If I'm honest, it struck me as being in the "piece of paper" category of non-reasons, but there's nowt as queer as folk, I guess. If CPs do provide some extra protection for women who would otherwise be high and dry, that's got to be a good thing. I just don't think it's going to make a massive difference. But I'll wait and see.

With that said, there are too many women refusing to protect themselves for silly, fallacious and non-existent reasons, so if CP sorts that out for some of them, it'll be worth it.

Yeah that's what I'm hoping. Obviously could just do without the gaslighty heterosexplaining (not all straight people etc).

What's the gaslighty heterosexplaining?

I presume for a lot of low earner people the other person sensibly won't marry them so instead they decide to take the risk of living together as that is the only way they get to get that richer good partner and therefore they do it at their own risk and if they really wanted legal protection don't move in with someone or have children with them until you have marriage or now CP or a cohabitation agreement with assets in joint names. Plenty cannot find someone prepared to commit to them in that way so they decide to take the risk because at least in the mean time whilst the relationship holds they get to live off the back of that person's money when their alternative is poverty or no children if they don't move in with someone who does not put assets at risk for them.

Ignoring the homophobic connotations of CP, and paying no attention to the lived experience of people in same sex relationships who went through denial of marriage and had no choice but to take the separate but equal option if they wanted rights. My only serious relationship has been with a man btw so I'm aware I had it very easy.

Whatever next, imprisoning straight people for having sex?
Being able to deny them housing, jobs etc for being straight?

Oh, I see. Yes, I agree.

It's still authentication by the state so fuck it, that's my primary objection to a civil ceremony anyway so this makes no difference

It's still authentication by the state

Trouble is, if you want legal protection, it's hard to do that without involving the legal system.

Of course, if you don't care about legal protection, it's not an issue.

Thinking about this again, because CP wont have the history of traditions around it like marriage does, then it will be emotionally easier for woman to ask, no all that "waiting for the ring" nonesense, or woman feeling the can only ask on a leap day without looking like they are forcing him to marry CP will take that power away from men - to control when the conversation about legal as well as emotional committment happens.

Being one of the cohort who’s considering a cp because I think it might be easier to to get it by family...

Yes really. And it’s not about Auntie Whoever, it’s about sad eyes and going on and on and on and on about it from not mil. I saw her at my not bil’s wedding and I just can’t be bothered with managing her. Or her offering to cater it to save us money. Or whatever it takes for us to spend lots of money so she can feel important. It’s not the main reason, but it’s certainly a very persuasive one!

I don’t know what pro-marriage people on here think should be done? I’m the product of unmarried parents (still together after 3 kids and 40 years) and I was born in a mother and baby home. There was enormous stigma attached to unmarried mothers, and pressure on my parents (my mum especially) to give me up. I don’t believe for a second that should being in an unmarried relationship become less socially acceptable that it would be the man taking the brunt of it. I’m all for public education re common law doesn’t exist, but I do think marriage is a legal expression of patriarchy and I continue to not want to apply it to our situation.