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 ..

So what are the processes of dissolving a civil partnership going to involve? Will it be the same as divorce where you’ll have to have a financial settlement etc and are we going to end up with a lot of incredibly naive people who thought that it was all so different finding out that actually, it’s all the same when their relationship ends?

Also- I know that adultery isn’t grounds for dissolution of a CP. Can someone explain to me the implications of this for a partner who discovers an affair and wants to end the relationship?

You can only commit adultery if you are married, so although partner may be having an affair it is not adultery.

@SummerGems - yes

To a those saying CPs should have been got rid off - as many of the homosexual couples who got them didn't agree when they could get married then it is only right they shouldn't continue to be treated like second class citizens.

Oh and I'm glad my mother can be legally named on my CP certificate and my OH will not need deed poll to change his lastname if we get one.

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.

Yes, although I must admit I don't actually know whether Spain recognises CP either!

Summer, yes dissolving a CP potentially involves agreeing what to do about children and assets, if you had any. Hopefully people will be aware of that.

Oh and I'm glad my mother can be legally named on my CP certificate and my OH will not need deed poll to change his lastname if we get one.

There's no law obliging him to get a deed poll if he wants to change his name now, married or not. Common misconception on here.

"I refuse to get married because it has a hateful, patriarchal history to it, so I won't do that on principal. Why can't I have a civil partnership instead - just because I'm straight?"

So the government introduces civil partnerships for straight couples.

"I refuse to enter into a civil partnership, because it has a hateful, homophobic history to it, so I won't do that on principal. Why can't the government bring in something neutral so that we can legally declare our committed partnership and gain added legal protection and tax privileges?"

So the government introduces such a neutral institution. They can't call it the traditionally-understood 'marriage' nor the ronseal name 'civil partnership', so they need a new, entirely unconnected name.

It's 2022, and the new 'wibblediwoo' is introduced in law. It has exactly the same benefits and features of marriage and civil partnerships, and any two single adults can choose to enter into one, but it is somehow completely different, with a non-historically-loaded name.

"I refuse to enter into a wibblediwoo, because it's obviously the government assuming that we're stupid and trying to pull the wool over our eyes, when anybody can see that it's just a thinly rebranded form of patriarchal marriage and homophobic civil partnerships; so I won't do that on principal."

Fair enough: those are the three possibilities open to you, but they're all entirely optional and you're perfectly at liberty to remain legally unattached if you prefer. All good.

"But what must I do to protect myself legally, have my commitment to my significant other legally recognised and not lose my home to IHT if my partner should die? The government must urgently bring in some kind of official civilly partnershippy kind of thing, with all the same features of marriage and civil partnership - but something totally different so that it doesn't make me think it has any links at all to an institution with what I consider to be a hateful, unacceptable history - which it inevitably will if it's effectively the same thing."

IT'S ALL ABOUT MEEEEEEEE!!!!

You can only commit adultery if you are married, so although partner may be having an affair it is not adultery.

And you can still be married and cheat and it's not adultery - if you cheat with someone of the same sex it's not considered adultery

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/divorce-adultery-law-rules-gay-lesbian-same-sex-affairs-why-dont-they-count-a7533766.html

My 'hoorah' was a slightly ironic one because imho the VAST majority of cohabiting couples WITH CHILDREN, will not take up on these . The amount of couples with ideological opposition to marriage , are tiny . If you are a sahm or working part time with absolutely no security- you are not going to hold theoretical, ideological opposition to the patrichy above the real financial insecurity of marriage . That is literally cutting your nose to spite your face.

My sad experience is if a close friend who lived with, and facilitated the stratospheric career of her 'don't believe in marriage ' partner. Who left her after 4 kids and 25 yrs for a 26 yr old who now lives with her HUSBAND in my friends former family home (he found his faith 🙄)
It will lead to some uncomfortable conversations..
Once you can no longer hide behind this nonsense and will hopefully make it clear to a lot of (mostly) women - that their partners have no care about marriage per se, just a very very deep belief in keeping all their assets for themselves.

If every cohabiting couple with children , where one is much more economically disadvantaged by childcare/mat leave asks their partner tonight if they can make an appointment to register their relationship.. I think the responses will be shocking.

If you are a sahm or working part time with absolutely no security- you are not going to hold theoretical, ideological opposition to the patrichy above the real financial insecurity of marriage . That is literally cutting your nose to spite your face.

Well. You'd be surprised.

I agree with you about this not being relevant to the large majority of cohabiting couples, but there've been a few women on here who feel exactly as you describe. There was one a while ago who was disabled and also worked less than her partner, doing more of the childcare, but still felt not doing the exact 50/50 financially made her a kept woman. To the extent that she'd rather just not go on any trips she couldn't pay for. She was on NMW part time. He thought the whole thing was ridiculous and had made the decision that they were all going on a nice holiday paid for by him and that was that.

Now it's probably clear that I think this is ridiculous. There's nothing patriarchy loves more than women taking a disproportionate share of caring burdens without financial protection (which is incidentally why cohabitation isn't intrinsically more feminist than marriage or indeed CP either). But such women exist!

I can see why some couples who have a family/religious/cultural background were an "afternoon off work, grab 2 witnesses and just wear your jeans" type wedding would cause massive family fall out, might appricate an alternative that doesn't have the same emotional baggage of a 'real marriage'.

CP may well be see as an interim option until you can have the 'real wedding'.

There does seem to be many couples on here that "don't get round" to arranging a wedding, because they know when they do, it won't be ok for family to just get it done without fanfare. If CP is framed as 'marriage lite' then it could be very popular.

But yes, many men who don't believe in marriage really do believe in it a lot in my experience, it's just they have no desire to be tied to this particular woman.

I like it.

Think, if you end up old, lonely with no relatives you can just CP your friend (same-sex or otherwise) and they won't have to pay inheritance tax :)

Same with long-term cohabiting couples approaching end of life.

Same with widows who for personal or religious reasons may not want to remarry.

oh and the overseas issue does need spelling out! Wasn't there a gay couple relatively recently where one sadly died on holiday in Australia and the Australian authorities wouldn't treat his husband as next of kin and release the body to him, because they don't recognise gay marriage?

Civil partnership will have the same issues.

@Elasticity didn't two guys do that?

Yes, Blue, two straight men in Ireland married to avoid inheritance tax. The younger one was carer to the older one who had no children or relatives and they'd been living together for years (the younger one was divorced with an adult child).

There are probably quite a few people who've done it quietly, since the ability to enter into legal unions with a pal of either sex to benefit from inheritance tax provisions has existed since opposite sex CP was introduced. They're the same for both married and CP couples.

I think it's excellent news. A way for anyone who wants the legal protection of marriage to do it. Some people do oppose marriage due to various reasons, it think it's a great idea for them to have a legal contract that is very legal and doesn't have the same religious ties etc marriage is perceived to have.

But weddings don’t have to be religious? In fact if you get married in a non religious setting you aren’t able to have any kind of religious element to the wedding even down to the music.

I had a civil wedding ceremony in 1999, eXH was my husband not my civil partner but the ceremony was deemed a civil ceremony iyswim.

In fact all weddings which take place in a registry office are civil ceremonies.

Seriously, anyone who believes that this is different to marriage other than that its origins are based in homophobia rather than perceived sexism (and I know which I would choose given the choice,) is being incredibly naive.

If you think that a civil partnership means that to all intents and purposes you’re still not married then you’re wrong.

And other than not wanting to be a man’s chattel (and if you’re in a relationship with a misogynist then he’ll see you as his chattel regardless of whether you’re married or not,) this brings no other benefits at all, and as such there is no valid reason for entering into one.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll You've nailed it. I love this post. And your username!

My understanding is that for most of the main issues like maintenance after a split and finances CP is like marriage. It was set up that way for gay people to mirror marriage.

@SummerGems civil partners are not married and must not refer to themselves legally as being married so there is a difference. There is absolutely no ceremony with a civil partnership unless you want one there as a marriage you have to have one.

As has already been pointed out the only difference is semantic.

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

What baggage does marriage have that a CP doesn’t?

This is great news.

Its upsetting some women are unhappy that other people will be able to have rights that fits within their 'different' beliefs. I suppose these are the same women that were unhappy for gay people to have rights.

Thankfully we live in a more liberal secular society.

What baggage does marriage have that a CP doesn’t?

Changing your name
Being a ‘wife’
Having to say ridiculous things like ‘til death parts us’ and ‘with my body I honour you’
Family/friends expecting to be present
People wanting to buy you a gift
Wearing a ring

Its upsetting some women are unhappy that other people will be able to have rights that fits within their 'different' beliefs. I suppose these are the same women that were unhappy for gay people to have rights.

Even though civil partnerships were invented specifically to not give gay people the right to enter into marriage...