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 ..

I've no principled opposition to CP, and I hope it's useful to some. It's just a bit galling when you're not straight to see people object to marriage because of (undoubted) negative patriarchal connotations, but either not notice or not be bothered about the nasty othering history of CP in this country.

What is patriarchal about marriage as it exists in the UK today? I'm talking in terms of legalities, not optional extras.

In theory the law is sexually neutral but it is still very very sexist that I and no mother can go on a child's marriage certificate, only the fathers. Cameron said he would fix that and has not done so.

Hopefully we are moving to more equality where all marriages will eventually be converted into civil partnerships, a legal transaction.

The marriage or religious side of things/ceremony/party/vows etc is left up to personal preference and just becomes a cosmetic overlay of the CP paperwork.

While thats not ideal, does that have any bearing on life practicalities and the protections offered to a lower earning partner?

CPs are a legal contract, very slightly different to marriage. Marriage is a legal contract too. What exactly do people think it is?

Walkingdead I would be very unhappy with that, as I along with many others in the LGBT community campaigned for equal marriage (still not completely there) and upgraded from a CP as soon as was possible.

CPs A’s has been pointed out many times on this thread, were a concession for gay people which we took whilst still lobbying for same sex marriage.

I do not want to be in a CP, I love calling my wife ‘my wife’ and for that to be true, and for our relationship to be recognised in the manner we prefer.

Until you have been marginalised like myself and the other gay people on this thread then I suggest you listen and try to take on board our lived experiences before commenting

Xenia I am on my older son’ Birth Certificate as the Father/Other parent.
I am currently a surrogate for a gay male couple and I will be looking into what options they will have on the certificate once my wife and I have signed over our parental rights. As it stands this child will have a similar birth certificate to my children with my wife being the Father/Other parent.

And if that’s not a case of homophobic ‘Othering’ then I don’t know what is!

Yes, talk of upgrading or of effectively compulsory conversion to something that has such othering and discriminatory connotations is pretty insensitive. Wouldn't kill some of you to give that a bit of thought.

The introduction of new electronic marriage registers with both parents’ names have been approved by Parliament haven’t they? But I can’t find when they’re due to be introduced.

Straight privilege means saying 'I have rights that others haven't been afforded, but I don't like the branding, so I think we should get rid of the whole thing'

It's easy to dismiss legal rights that you've been able to choose to reject, rather than been legally denied'

Unlike LGBT couples who have been fighting for marriage equality for years

Opposite sex couples have never been denied the right to have their union legally recognised

So why advocate to take away rights from same sex couples, that they've been deprived of for far far too long

To be honest I don't give a flying fuck whether or not I'm on my son's marriage certificate, I've got more important things to froth about.

I still don't see why people who don't want to be guilted by their families can't get married and just not tell them. Do people tell their families when they sign their wills? It's just the same.

I know it's just a philosophical point but I get very uncomfortable when straight people talk about CPs as though their introduction was an act of discrimination against heterosexual couples.

(I was a bit annoying when my offspring married - the lawyer/doctor mothers had paid a fair bit proably more than anyone male towards the cost and yet only the fathers are on it as if the women are wiped from history. Also I have been buying marriage certs back to abiout 1837 and getting lots of details about people's fathers but not my ancestors' mothers (although they are on the birth cert but even so...)

Hopefully we are moving to more equality where all marriages will eventually be converted into civil partnerships, a legal transaction. I fucking hope not @Walkingdeadfangirl, I contracted a civil marriage because that's what I wanted.

Me too. I want to be married, that's why I did it.

Hopefully we are moving to more equality where all marriages will eventually be converted into civil partnerships, a legal transaction.

Just... why? Why would anyone want the name of other people's marriages to be changed to "civil partnerships" without their consent?

Honestly, some people actually want to find problems where there are none. The couple who took this to court must have a hell of a lot of time on their hands, to be frank!

1. Institution of marriage as legal contract to formalise an (opposite sex) couple's union in the eyes of the law. Civil marriage is the legal contract, religious ceremony is an optional addition. Same sex couples deliberately excluded with no way to gain legal recognition of their relationship at all, no mechanism for them to access the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

1. Straight couples are free to reject civil marriage if they so choose - but that is by choice.

1. Misconception amongst many couples of common law marriage rights persists.

1. LGBT community lobby for many years for marriage equality

1. Unmarried cohabitees can replicate some of the rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage through a bespoke legal cohabitation agreement, but very few couples choose to do so

1. Government finally agree to grant gay couples legal recognition of their union. However too cowardly to simply extend marriage to include same sex couples, because of opposition from Tory homophobes. Rather than marriage equality, government offer a consolation prize of a legal union specifically for same sex couples. This is civil marriage in all but name, but treats LGBT couples as second class citizens, othering gay couples, sending the message they they are not deemed worthy of 'true' equality

1. Civil marriage equality - same sex couples finally legally able to marry and treated no differently to opposite sex couples. CP persists as once created it's much harder to rescind a legal status (than it would have been to extend civil marriage in the first place)

I don't see straight couples being denied CP, when they've had the legal rights denied to others for so many years all along, as the great injustice.

I've no problem with it conceptually, I just personally have way more of an issue with a legal status established specifically to exclude same sex couples, rooted in prejudice, to be a greater concern than historical patriarchal baggage of civil marriage

Given that civil marriage includes men marrying men, and women marrying women, that suggests we've come a long way since the days of a wife being her husband's chattel

Whereas CP being created deliberately as a 'you're not good enough for equal rights' institution, I find rather more troubling

I'm straight, but it meant a great deal to me at our civil marriage that the words spoken by the registrar stated that marriage was between two people, rather than one man and one woman

I always wanted a CP, but the French style, not the let’s fuck the gays over option we have here.

I caved and just got married. No proposal, no fuss, no name change, no fancy clothes, just the two of us and totally what we wanted. We even did it in another country because the certificates they issue don’t contain any of our parents details.

The only issue has been our families who’ve made it all about them. Tears, tantrums and so many arsey comments from people we’ve not seen in years about how we’ve done them out of a party. They just don’t get that marriage to us is literally just a bit of paper. A CP might have prevented this.

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 ..

@Valanice1989 the first person I heard say that was a vicar. He pointed it was unfair that only certain religions could have their religious official stand in for a registrar which meant some people, particularly women, thought they were legally married in a religious ceremony when they were not. Jerry Hall is the well known example of this.

So making all marriages civil partnerships first then making it a marriage if you wanted the religious/ceremonal aspect would avoid people being duped about their relationship status.

Obviously the law needs to change so governments butt out of which couples religions can decide to marry - why is it the business of MPs who a CofE vicar marries?

Oh and it wouldn't be changed retrospectively so if your vicar or priest stood in for the local registrar they aren't going to suddenly void your marriage.

I thought those campaigning for equality wanted marriage for same sex couples and that CP'S were invented so David Cameron could get something through parliament

If you're going to bash the Tories, at least get your facts straight.

CPs were invented in 2004 by th Blair government who wanted to get something through Parliament. Marrriage for same sex couples was brought in by the coalition (though it did seem to be a Cameron initiative) in 2013/14

(did skim thread to see if this had been posted earlier, didn't spot, but apologise in advance and blame lack of morning coffee in case)

Valanice was responding to someone who expressed a desire for existing marriages to be converted into CP bluebug, retrospective change. I expect we all agree that's not happening but it's been raised.

Also, you're conflating civil marriage and civil partnership in your post. They're not the same thing, hence several years of legal action from the couple involved, who always had access to civil marriage but didn't want one. There could be no facility for straight CP alongside secular only marriage, and there can (and will be) straight CP alongside the existence of religious, non-legal marriage ceremonies. Making all marriages turn into CP and not offering any more marriage, as the poster concerned wants, doesn't stop that.