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 ..

Why would you agree to a civil partnership over a wedding though? They’re presumably both legally binding contracts which involve a ceremony to get there, and will both involve legal dissolution if they don’t work out, with division of assets etc.

If you don’t believe in marriage then presumably you don’t believe in civil partnerships either? The only reason why civil partnerships were made legal for same sex couples was because same sex marriage was illegal at that point. Now that same sex marriage exists there is no valid reason why civil partnerships need to.

If you want to share assets then get married.

I'm bi and reserve the right to side eye people who think they can just make the homophobic connotations of CP go away It was your assertion that I was doing that I was commenting on!

But then, just as I didn't know and don't care that you are bi, you didn't know and presumably don't care that I support SIL in her politicking make changes to the CP as it currently stands.

She thinks it is a positive move, opening it up to everyone means there will have to be more broadly sweeping changes. This is an opportunity to make areal difference to couples, regardless of their sexual orientation!

@CuriousAboutSamphire

"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!"

Not sure what you mean here. What people may think of a registry office wedding might be one thing...but the reality is that all couples getting married complete the same paperwork as at a 'registry office wedding'. It's the legal bit! Any extras are just fluff.

I am a bit thick so enlighten me. (Please...)

Do people in CPs get ALL the perks and advantages of being married? (Automatically inherit partner's wealth, in charge of the life support switch, get his/her pensions etc???)

Not sure what advantages people get in CPs tbh.

'Now that same sex marriage exists there is no valid reason why civil partnerships need to. '

Apart from the tens of thousands of same sex couples who have one, and those who choose to continue CP rather than marriage!

This is great news. IMO a civil partnership is different to a wedding and it’s great that it’s now available to all couples.

The Guardian article quoted above stated that there’s approximately 3.3 million cohabiting, non-married couples in the UK.

What proportion of them are actively choosing not to marry for ideological reasons? Not a high percentage I’m guessing. This is great news for those who want legal protections without the perceived trappings of marriage, but from my experience those couples are in the minority.

If people can’t be arsed getting married, then they won’t be arsed arranging a civil partnership.

It’s just marriage with a different name.

People will in theIr hearts still believe what they believe which within their own four walls they're entitled to.

If people can’t be arsed getting married, then they won’t be arsed arranging a civil partnership.

This is probably true, although I imagine a small minority will opt for it. For gay couples, there are about 1000 civil partnerships a year at the moment, although this is down from a peak of around 15,000.

I do worry that people will misunderstand the news and think that they will get some kind of automatic rights now...

CuriousaboutSamphire time has thankfully moved on in terms of civil partnerships. We now have full equality in marriage for both same sex and conventional relationships.
CP was just a means to an end. It seems backward thinking to now demand equality when we already have the very thing that they fought for.
I bet many in the LGBT (etc) community have their head in their hands, Incredulous that others see this as a move forward.

So do people in civil partnerships get ALL the perks married couples do then? Inherit pension and any assets etc???

It was your assertion that I was doing that I was commenting on!

Well, you evidently are. You're talking about how CP doesn't have the trappings and history of marriage. No, it's got problematic ones all to itself! And you're talking about how those could go away, but meanwhile it will still have the history, whether anyone likes it or not.

But then, just as I didn't know and don't care that you are bi, you didn't know and presumably don't care that I support SIL in her politicking make changes to the CP as it currently stands.

She thinks it is a positive move, opening it up to everyone means there will have to be more broadly sweeping changes. This is an opportunity to make areal difference to couples, regardless of their sexual orientation!

And she's entitled to think that if she wants, but if she doesn't accept the homophobic connotations (I don't know if she does) then she's wrong and I'm entitled to point out how either badly informed or offensive that actually is. If she's not one of those people, fine.

This is what I think too dinosaurkisses. I understand this is important to some people and while I'm side-eyeing, fundamentally Peter Tatchell is right about how the status quo wasn't equality under the law. But it's not going to be relevant to the majority of married couples.

Oh! OK! Bad me.

But how do people who want to have a legally recognised partnership without marriage and all that carries with it get to have what they want?

CPs being evolved into the sort of legal entity they always should have been is one way... how else?

Anyone who thinks that there aren’t homophobic connotations to this is naive. The reason why the fight for them started in the first place was because they were made legal for same sex couples. So it very much was a case of a straight couple saying “well, if gays can have them then so should we.” In simplistic terms. Except “gays” didn’t have marriage, but plenty of straight people disagreed with them being allowed marriage....

Well, you evidently are. And I really do object to that! It ignores everything I actually have said and replaces it with the snide assertion that I have an issue with homosexuality!

Your self belief is gob smacking! Intractable, much?

But how do people who want to have a legally recognised partnership without marriage and all that carries with it get to have what they want?

Well, they can have CP and all that carries with it. And I've no problem with people opting for that, just as long as they don't minimise or bullshit and they call it what it is. Just like anyone saying marriage doesn't have any history of patriarchy would obviously be full of shit too.

Or they can campaign for something new entirely, be that the formal recognition of cohabiting unions after a certain point like the de facto system in Australia, or a new institution that from the start isn't sexist or homophobic.

If you want to share assets then get married.

This ('then get married') is exactly my problem. Currently marriage is the only solution available to me and DP to, basically, be each other's next of kin in terms of health decisions/money/inheritance.

We just want to be able to e.g. leave each other the house so that, in the event of one of us dying, the other doesn't get crippled by tax.

It is not fair that only those who get married are currently rewarded in this way.

If people can’t be arsed getting married, then they won’t be arsed arranging a civil partnership. When/if it comes to pass, I can very much 'be arsed' (and I do enjoy the implication that someone who hasn't got/won't get married is lazy).

But how do people who want to have a legally recognised partnership without marriage and all that carries with it get to have what they want? they don’t. If they want those sorts of rights they should get married. It’s perfectly possible to do so but without the religious element if you want. I had a civil wedding, thousands of people have them every year.

Civil partnership is just marriage with a different name. So you’re still going to be bound to someone in law, still going to be sharing your assets with them, there is no difference.

It ignores everything I actually have said and replaces it with the snide assertion that I have an issue with homosexuality!

It doesn't in the slightest. In fact, my assumption that you don't have an issue with homosexuality is part of the reason I'm skewering this thinking. Because if you were actually homophobic, there'd be logic to you minimising the connotations and being fine with engaging in something that others gay people but not something patriarchal. You'd be well out of order, obviously, but it would be in keeping with your beliefs. However I gathered you were not homophobic.

Civil partnership is just marriage with a different name. Clearly some people think differently!

But yes, I suppose a brand new 'thing' could be invented for them, so as not to piss anyone off.

Odd that, as marriage has always been about treating women like chattels, to be given away. But no, for a woman to want an equal partnership without all of that means he must want gay people to be disadvantaged/annoyed! So no, woman, you can't have it!

How about we just recognise that some people don't want an old fashioned marriage but do want legal standing within their relationship... and work out how to get that sorted without resorting to point scoring and petty insults?

my sister is in a 20 year relationship and neither of them have children. They own their house. They don’t see the point in marriage because it’s a “piece of paper” but I was under the impression that the house won’t pass to the other one simply when one of them dies? They’ll be hit by inheritance tax? Am I wrong?

But why should people have legal standing within their relationship if they don’t want to get married?

There already is a way to achieve the right to assets within a relationship and it’s called marriage. If you want that, then get married.. Just because some people don’t want to doesn’t mean they should have those rights anyway?

When/if it comes to pass, I can very much 'be arsed' (and I do enjoy the implication that someone who hasn't got/won't get married is lazy).

Well lazy is a loaded word, but we know people can be quite bad at organising stuff when they don't immediately have to. It's the same reason why so many of us don't have wills, even though we know full well we're going to die. There are obviously people who aren't married because they object on principle, because they don't want the legal consequences or because they wrongly think they're common law, but I don't think it's especially unusual to think you want to get married at some point but not have prioritised or got round to it.

However it's also worth pointing out that some people who don't get married invest considerable time and energy in putting into place alternative legal provisions, trusts etc to come as close as possible to replicating marriage. This often requires more effort than is necessary to get married. So maybe it's the married people who are bone idle corner cutters!

What proportion of them are actively choosing not to marry for ideological reasons? Not a high percentage I’m guessing. This is great news for those who want legal protections without the perceived trappings of marriage, but from my experience those couples are in the minority.

Research certainly suggests that ideological objectors are likely to be a minority compared to those who believe that they're already protected by common law marriage laws (that don't exist)

Resolution carried out a survey which found two-thirds of cohabiting couples wrongly believe "common-law marriage" laws exist when dividing up finances

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42134722