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 still cannot fathom what the point of all this is!

If you want the same rights as a married couple, then get married.

Civil Partnerships should have been abolished when Gay Marriage became legal (IMO.) Because, (as a few posters have said,) all they are, is marriage under another name.

@dinosaurkisses

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

Agree with this.

As some people said, many people won't get married because they don't want their partner getting any of their assets. So they are hardly going to enter into a Civil Partnership are they?! Civil Partnerships are really only for people who refuse marriage as they see marriage as a woman being 'owned by the man' (which quite frankly, is a ridiculous way to think in 2018!)

And the 'it's only a piece of paper' brigade really piss me off too. It's really not! I can't believe some people still come out with that bullshit.

@LavendarGreen

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

Yeah, pretty much all the same perks.

I'm in a CP and am glad we did it before marriage was an option. It's a pity civil partnerships now seem to be viewed as inferior; I never imagined getting married and I don't want to now. So I'm glad CPs are available for opposite sex couples too.

But why should people have legal standing within their relationship if they don’t want to get married? Flip that around... why shouldn't they?

If you don't like the institution of marriage and all the baggage it carries why shouldn't there be an alternative?

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!

I’m married. My husband doesn’t view or treat me as a chattel.

I assure you that marriage doesn’t mean that it’s an unequal partnership for couples who chose to get married in 2018.

I’m married. My husband doesn’t view or treat me as a chattel. I am too, and nor does my husband.

But that is the history of marriage. And some people don't want that kind of relationship or that kind of 'license'. They just want a legal recognition of their partnership and parity in pensions, inheritance etc.

Why should that not be possible?

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!

I have no idea what this means How on Earth are registry office weddings "second class"? You get all the same rights if you get married in a registry office that you get if you get married somewhere else! The wedding is just the first day. Why should registry office weddings now be "done away with"?

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.

So what do you want that civil partnership doesn't offer you?

What legal provision would you be happy with?

@dinosaurkisses

I’m married. My husband doesn’t view or treat me as a chattel.

I assure you that marriage doesn’t mean that it’s an unequal partnership for couples who chose to get married in 2018.

Exactly!!! Anyone who sees women as being 'owned' by men, when they are married, (in 2018!) needs to give their head a wobble. It's a ridiculous and antiquated attitude,. Like you and your husband, me and my husband are equal partners. Some people need to drag themselves into the 21st century!

If you put so much importance on the history of marriage, then surely the homophobic origins of CP must be equally as important to you? Otherwise it comes across as slightly hypocritical.

This is very interesting.

Can someone explain it all to me? I have no real moral opposition to getting married, but I really can't be bothered and not sure what benefits it would bring. Would having a civil partnership give any other benefits and is it easier than getting married? I.e. what's the difference?

As background, DP and I have no kids (and do not want any), we own a house together which according to the paperwork we drew up when we bought it I own 60% and he 40% because I put the deposit in.

We don't have any savings.

He has his own business. I would never expect any part of that financially if we split or he died, and I think that would automatically go to the other share holders anyway (only 2 of them).

So what is the point of marriage or civil partnership, can we just keep going as we are or are we at a disadvantage?

simple bit of paper, not a fluffy wedding for ANY couple.

But you can do that now. You can get married in jeans at a registry office with just a couple of witnesses and go back to work afterward. You can have a religious or secular ceremony based on your preference.

Marriage has always been first and foremost a legal contract. In times gone by many poorer people didn't bother with it as they had no assets to protect - they simply referred to each other as husband and wife. The current fashion for overblown fancy weddings doesn't change the legal aspect (although it may act as a very big distraction).

My working assumption was that Civil Partnerships would be phased out now that Equal Marriage is law since Civil partnerships in the UK don't allow selective degrees of partnership in the way some Civil Pacts do in other countries.

I suppose I'm not clear on the point of two versions of a marriage/partnership agreement which are effectively identical?

Flip that around... why shouldn't they? because they’re not married. It really is that simple.

And for those who say that they want the ability to be able to share finances and have legal protection etc, can you imagine how that would work if common law became a legally recognised thing? At the moment people on here very much advise women to get married so that they have equal rights in the event of a split, can you imagine though how women here would be being advised if the law changed to recognise cohabiting relationships as common law after a certain period of time? We would be advising women to do the exact opposite and to absolutely not move in with him under any circumstances as doing so would give him the right to your property/money etc in the event of a split.

Ultimately there is a legal way to ensure your right to a portion of the assets of the relationship, it’s called marriage. Just because you call it a civil partnership isn’t going to change that fact. So marriage, civil partnership, it’s all just semantics really, ultimately you will still be giving over your assets to your partner, and it will still need to be legally dissolved in the event of a split etc. Presumably also the partner will gain automatic parental responsibility for any children born of a civil partnership where they currently do not.

Ultimately if you don’t believe in marriage that’s your right, but don’t kid yourselves that entering into a civil partnership isn’t just being married under a different name, because it absolutely is.

I agree that many men who've spent years claiming they don't believe in marriage because it's patriarchal are going to be bricking it over this! And their poor partners, whom they've strung along for years, are in for a nasty shock.

*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?*

This.

Also why on earth would anyone who had rejected marriage on the grounds of historical misogyny want to enter into a civil partnership which has its own dubious, homophobic origins?

Every same sex couple I know that had a CP immediately got married when it became legal because then it was equal. They felt it wasn’t with a CP. I think civil partnerships should have been scrapped now anyone can get married. This feels backwards not forwards.

So what is the point of marriage or civil partnership, can we just keep going as we are or are we at a disadvantage?

This outlines the different rights and responsibilities between marriage and cohabitation - they may or may not be advantageous depending on your own personal circumstances

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

I’m married but neutral on CPs for heterosexuals - if that’s what they want then fine, no skin off my nose. And if all the news coverage informs a few more unmarried people of their legal status and gets them to at least make a bloody will then so much the better.

But people considering this do need to be informed that the “equivalent to marriage” status of CPs only lasts as far as the English Channel/Irish Border. Once you’re outside the UK then you’ll need to do some detailed research on what, if any, status a CP confers. Fine if you’re not planning anything more adventurous than two weeks on the Costas, potentially problematic if you want to live and work elsewhere.

(And mention of the Irish border makes me wonder whether straight CPs will be available in NI? Now that really would be adding insult to injury)

Ultimately if you don’t believe in marriage that’s your right, but don’t kid yourselves that entering into a civil partnership isn’t just being married under a different name, because it absolutely is. How odd!

Those who want civil partnership don't want to get married, under any name. That's the point! They just want to ensure that the life they built as a committed couple has some legal protection.

Saying "because they’re not married. It really is that simple" is really quite an odd response to people who don't want the 'marriage terminology

How dismissive! Why do you feel that strongly? Its not like civil partnerships devalue marriage, or take anything away from married couples.

If employers start giving more favourable pension schemes to people in civil partnerships now that straight people can have them, it'll be absolutely disgusting. But it won't shock me.

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

@MidnightAura

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!

Also why on earth would anyone who had rejected marriage on the grounds of historical misogyny want to enter into a civil partnership which has its own dubious, homophobic origins?

Every same sex couple I know that had a CP immediately got married when it became legal because then it was equal. They felt it wasn’t with a CP. I think civil partnerships should have been scrapped now anyone can get married. This feels backwards not forwards.

All of this. Agree totally!

It looks like it's going to happen though, so the 'I'm not gonna be owned by a man' brigade have got their own way (pretty much!)

Not hooray at all, a hunger eyeroll 🙄.

Civil partnerships should have been ceased to be offered as an option once single sex marriages became possible, with the option to change any that were already contracted to being a legal marriage. CPs were only created as a halfway house towards marriage equality, which outlived its purpose once that parity was achieved.

Making it open to those who have always had the option of legal marriage is pointless - they have always been able to have, and can still have a small, plain, inexpensive civil marriage ceremony without anyone ( bar legal witnesses ) there if that is their preference.
I was at a civil wedding ceremony recently and all vows and declarations were the same - no one was handing over a maiden to anyone and no one was promising to obey.

Before the existence of CP I cannot recall any public demand from heterosexual couples wanting a non-marriage legal partnership - having two versions of similar things is a camel of an arrangement ( a camel being a horse designed by committee) and entirely illogical.

I am very puzzled as to why people are denying it's the same as marriage! It totally is. Just accept it!

Huge not hunger - in the first line !

It's possible to replicate some of the rights and responsibilities of marriage with a legal cohabitation agreement, but only some.

They're also significantly more expensive than a civil marriage!

It's an option already that allows for some legal protection for unmarried couples that very few access - because lots of couples either believe they're already protected by common law marriage laws or because they want to protect their own assets

Agree Platypus. Civil Partnerships seem so pointless now.

I just wanted to come on and remind people that a 'marriage' ceremony and 'wedding' are two different things and are separate and the wedding is not required, nor is any patriarchy. Always curious how much misconception abounds about what is 'required' to get married. Very little. A few words that you can bring down to a bare minimum and a signature with two witnesses. Literally, it can be just a piece of paper to get.