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 ..

Thanks CuriousaboutSamphire - was genuinely troubled about that! Good to know it’s unfounded.

You'd probably just petition based on unreasonable behaviour, and the unreasonable behaviour would be putting it about with someone else.

I know that. Which is why I said the 'can be' rather than stating that they are!

Yes I thought that's what you were getting at, but because CP is going to involve actively arranging in and participating in a legal process, I don't agree. That's not what common law partnership means.

For the pension schemes, I hope that can be fixed, but I seem to recall someone tried already. I don't know any details though. And just to be clear, I'm not dismissing CP: I'm the one who pointed out that CPs offer most of the same protections and rights as marriage, in fact.

I'm one of the "people like Luisa77" who recognises the need to have the legal security of marriage but am a bit squeamish about the patriarchal overtones of the institution. Don't know enough about the differences of CP and marriage to know whether it would be a truly preferable alternative but will certainly look into it.

Because it doesn't have all the trappings of 'wedding' and the terminology and history of that.

Because it could become a simple contract and a marriage will retain all the historical trappings.

Giving all couples a choice between the two.

And no, I don't think a registry office was the same... that was more of a second class wedding/marriage and could now be done way with!

But I now that isn't how many people see it. It is just my 'pie in the sky/rose tinted spectacles' version of how it could be!

CuriousaboutSamphire shamefully I think you are right that now heterosexuals are able to enter into a civil partnership the law will have to take them seriously.
Sadly the community that fought for that right still don't have full equality re pensions and other benefits. Good to know that now we have the right to CP things will have to change

I'm one of the "people like Luisa77" who recognises the need to have the legal security of marriage but am a bit squeamish about the patriarchal overtones of the institution.

Me and my DP too. Well, not SO much the patriarchal overtones – more the fact of privileging and rewarding one narrow form of relationship over others.

He and I would have a civil partnership tomorrow if we could. I'm not holding my breath over it though, seeing as our current government seem unable to organise the proverbial in the proverbial.

Well, if you find the recent homophobic and othering connotations of CP preferable, all power to you. But the main thing is to make an informed decision, and to ensure you put whatever protections you deem appropriate into place if you don't want marriage or CP.

but because CP is going to involve actively arranging in and participating in a legal process, I don't agree. That's not what common law partnership means. as I said above, I am probably being too positive about the possibilities!

Will overseas CPs now be recognised? I have a colleague in this situation.

Good to know that now we have the right to CP things will have to change I know, it is shameful. SIL is still actively fighting to make changes, which may be where I get my possibly unfounded hopefulness from.

if you find the recent homophobic and othering connotations of CP preferable Mmmmm! I am now doubting your posting sincerity!

I am happy about this.

Not here in Scotland yet unfortunately.

RayRayBidet I completely agree. I would have preferred it if they'd just gotten rid of them all together.

Silly question.,..

What’s actually the difference?

Why would a man agree to a CP but not a marriage?

What does marriage offer that a CP doesn’t?

"Feminist" men will be shitting themselves. YANBU OP

I don't think men who wouldn't agree to marriage will agree to a civil partnership either. Hence my anticipation of a lot of squirming. After all, the "piece of paper" argument applies to both equally.

Doubt away. I'm bi and reserve the right to side eye people who think they can just make the homophobic connotations of CP go away. Anyone who doesn't like that, oh well.

I don't understand the difference between a civil partnership and a civil wedding? It just looks like semantics

I don't think men who wouldn't agree to marriage will agree to a civil partnership either.

Neither would women, presumably? Well, I certainly wouldn't agree to either.

FaithHopeAndSkulduggery - err, I DO worry about one of us dying - that's exactly WHY I'm planning to get married or enter into a civil partnership. We are only now in a position where the value of what we'd each be deemed to own in our home (/estate generally) exceeds the personal threshold (as even though we are joint tenants, and even though we've left everything to each other in our wills, there is still deemed to be a transfer if one of us dies)

Bluelady - it's not that I think it's easier at all, I just never really liked the idea of getting married. I find it hard to articulate sometimes - but it has a lot of "baggage" for me personally, but I'm very aware that it's sensible to do something.

@Brahumbug

Pretty much

Explainer from the Guardian

"Civil partnerships were created in 2004 as a means of allowing same sex couples to enter into a union that guarantees them similar legal rights to those who are married.

Until recently they have been limited to same-sex couples. In October 2018, following a supreme court ruling declaring the existing position discriminatory, the government announced that heterosexual couples would also be entitled to enter the arrangement.

There are differences between the two forms of union, partially symbolic and partially matters of substance. For a marriage, the ceremony is solemnised by the couple saying a prescribed form of words; in a civil partnership, the couple can simply sign a document.

Marriages can be conducted through either a civil or religious ceremony, at a registry office, church or wherever a venue is licensed. Civil partnerships are secular events, although partners can choose to hold a religious ceremony on the day.

Civil partners cannot declare, for legal purposes, that they are married. Civil partnership certificates include the names of both parents of the parties whereas marriage certificates in England and Wales include only the names of a couple's fathers – for the time being.

In terms of annulment the rules are virtually identical, although the clause that permits a marriage to be dissolved if one partner is 'suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form' does not apply to civil partnerships.

Likewise, adultery can be grounds for a married couple to divorce though it cannot be relied upon to end a civil partnership.

Those in civil partnerships and those who are married enjoy the same tax breaks and benefits – such as the marriage allowance and bereavement payments.

Surviving civil partners are treated the same as widows or widowers in terms of rights to state pension.

While those who are married and in civil partnerships enjoy extensive legal rights, those who are merely cohabiting – 3.3 million couples at the last estimate – have no legal protections or property rights if one of them dies."

I don't understand what the point is? I thought civil partnerships gave many but not all of the legal rights as marriage and a way of giving gay couples similar legal rights as married couples before same sex marriage was legal?

Why would straight couples enter into a civil partnership? If you don't want to get married surely you aren't going to want a civil partnership either? I don't see what the benefits are extending to straight people?

Just to clarify some points:

• "Common law" means law made up by judges through the courts, rather than by Parliament. There are some countries where judges have decided to treat people in certain (usually long-term) relationships as being effectively as good as married and therefore entitled to certain rights - that is a common law marriage. Common law marriages have never existed in the UK, despite many people believing that they do.

• Civil partnerships are extremely similar to marriages. There are a couple of very minor differences (harrogatefamilylaw.co.uk/civil-partnership-v-marriage-differences-explained/).

• Civil partnerships are not "common law" as the relevant law has been created by Parliament (and will be amended by Parliament to allow access to straight couples). They will also still require people to opt in and pay for the civil partnership certificate etc., so won't offer any protection for unmarried couples who don't take the postive action to have their relationship legally recognised.

So I suppose this might be good for those who object to the institution of marriage on principle because of its patriarchal roots, although as pp have said it's not like the history of civil partnerships is that great.

I guess it might be good as well where there are people who want to have the legal protection of a marriage but can't afford a wedding and who have relatives who would be very upset if they did not have a big wedding ceremony - you can "upgrade" your civil partnership to marriage at a later date if you still want the big ceremony.

I concerned though that the terminology causes confusion already and this may get worse. I have a friend who used to work in insurance and had lots of straight couples ticking the box to indicate that they are in a civil partnership because they "have a relationship and are civil to each other"

Thanks, Luisa. Apologies for misreading your post.

I think it's totally stupid. CPs were only there because cowardly government didn't want to extend marriage to same-sex couples.

@Bluelady I agree, it's going to be difficult for them, hope they have started thinking up excuses now!
@PaulDacreRimsGeese
Totally agree, that's why I don't like CP'S and don't agree with extending them.