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 ..

Though I do think that the law should allow a person to keep their birth name after marriage, not presume that a woman will adopt the man's surname.

I'm confused - the law does allow a person to keep their birth name after marriage already?

No one has to legally change their name on marriage as the law stands?

For me, marriage does hold more emotional weight. We both have ‘interesting’ families. I have ott friends who I love dearly. If we go and do the CP, they would literally say oh good, best be sensible. If we got married without them/in secret then there would be tears, complaints, post wedding surprise parties etc. Our teens would be annoyed with us. Such a bloody fuss. And we both want the complete opposite.

It could be a good opportunity for a campaign to make clear that there is no such thing common law marriage.

If you want to be legally recognised as partners then you must register it - civil partnership or legally valid marriage.

One difference is that CPs don't have vows. Important if they are going to extend CPs to siblings. Which I hope they do.

Why are married people getting upset? If you are happy being married, then people being happy about CPs is irrelevant to you.

The comment about it being the law that women have to change their name on marriage is very worrying.

'It could be a good opportunity for a campaign to make clear that there is no such thing common law marriage'

Could not agree more. So many people still think that common law 'marriage' is a thing. It's really worrying

'Why are married people getting upset? If you are happy being married, then people being happy about CPs is irrelevant to you'

God knows. The defensiveness, nastiness and personal comments from married people on these threads is no new thing sadly.

I didn't get this to be honest. It's marriage with a different name. What's the point? It's still not going to make your partner want to commit to you if they found 'excuses' for marriage. They are still going to say no to this. And it is still essentially just a piece of paper so that excuse still works. You never had to change your name in marriage either, dunno where people got that idea from. It was just a common thing to do. You didn't need marriage to be religious either.

The defensiveness, nastiness and personal comments from married people on these threads is no new thing sadly.

To be fair, a lot of pretty insulting stuff is being said about weddings and married people too. Register Office weddings beings second-class was pretty low for example, and the assumption that everyone who gets married has to have a religious ceremony and say a load of old-fashioned vows is getting pretty tiresome.

CP and marriages are both legal contracts. One has a history in the patriarchy, but isn't that now. One has a more recent whiff of othering homosexuals, although isn't that now either. I can't see that either is superior to the other in terms of their moral backgrounds.

'One has a history in the patriarchy, but isn't that now. '

Well that may be how you feel, but not all of us share your view.

Suggesting that registry office weddings are second class is clearly nonsense though

Yeah that second class line wasn't very nice.

Though I do think that the law should allow a person to keep their birth name after marriage, not presume that a woman will adopt the man's surname WTF? I've been married for 20 years, never used DH's surname, same for most of my married friends. So much nonsense is spouted on here about marriage.
How much is this entirely pointless extension of civil partnerships going to cost, I wonder, and what other public services will be cut to pay for it?

Sorry but marriage is still steeped in patriarchy. Father's names on marriage certificates, assumption of women changing their name, being given away, waiting for the man to propose, asking woman's father for hand in marriage etc etc. I know that a lot of women don't buy into this but you can't deny that it is still rife.

I will still be getting married, even if people think it's 1950s. And I will be taking my partners name, mainly because I don't actually like mine.

We will probably get married in Vegas because it seems funny to be honest. No religious content, we will have vows, I may have a ring although no doubt will forget to wear it and none of our family will be there. It will be just us. And yes he will call me wife and I will call him husband. Or other names depending on how much we've annoyed each other.

Lol schnitzel at you being so publicly minded. You could aldo say that if you do away with marriage then public services would reap the benefits of not having to administer the costs of all those divorces.

*'One has a history in the patriarchy, but isn't that now. '

Well that may be how you feel, but not all of us share your view. *

If you could give one concrete example of marriage still being a patriarchial institution in 2018 for every couple, regardless of where they get married, what type of ceremony they have and how much fuss is made, I’d love to hear it.

Universities didn’t accept women until the 1870s- doesn’t mean it’s a valid argument for a woman to not attend college in the modern day. Same for voting or owning land.

From my POV as a gay women who entered into a CP, it always felt like a halfway house. We would have loved to have just been married, and we ‘upgraded’ when same sex marriage became legal.

Marriage as an institution ceased to be the same as soon as same sex couples were able to wed, so the whole patriarchal thing carries much less weight.

Moreover it really hurts that the LGBT community has had to lobby so hard and for so long to get any sort of legal recognition of our love and partnership, and to have mixed sex couples whinging about us gays having something that they don’t, without the understanding of what we have been through and how much abuse and hardships we have faced, really annoys me.

CPs were made to shut us up, not to give gay people any more rights than same sex couples. It was only when people realised that it really wasn’t that bad that we actually managed to get full marriage.

I remember as a young woman watching my friends wed, feeling so depressed and isolated from society, thinking I would never be allowed to get married, and people spreading vitriol about how ‘my sort’ shouldn’t be allowed to marry or have children. I still hear these views from time to time.

For CPs to be afforded to same sex couples after only 4 years compared to our struggles for decades does feel like a slap in the face, even though I know it’s not intentional.

Anyway, just my (very long) POV

@PeachMelba78 absolutely!

Pretty frustrating at the importance some posters are placing on totally optional traditions linked to marriage and choosing to completely ignore the recent homophobia closely linked to CPs.

People pay for their own divorces catherine. I think a lot of people like the idea of CPs because they perceive them to be marriage-lite, like the French Pacte Civil, whereas in fact they are marriage by another name and just as binding. So if marriage is just a piece of paper so is a CP.

Dinosaur, I said previously that to date it is still only father's names that appear on the marriage certificate. I think that's proof of patriarchy alive and well in every marriage.

Completely agree peach, I think the people who brought this case don't have one shred of empathy. It infuriates me.

It’s also worth mentioning that most same sex couples still can’t marry in religious ceremonies as many religions don’t allow it, so we just have to accept this. This is much rarer for mixed sex couples.

Also when referring to marriage and the patriarchal nature, remember that most same sex couples will have a different way of deciding on surnames etc which does change the whole way marriage is viewed.

Schnitzel, who pays for the registers to be updated, tax office records to be changed etc?

Thanks pps for the support.
My wife would have loved to have had a religious ceremony but we were not allowed, but this is very conveniently forgotten about in the push for mixed sex CPs.

Dinosaur, I said previously that to date it is still only father's names that appear on the marriage certificate. I think that's proof of patriarchy alive and well in every marriage.

In what way does that have any impact on how every marriage is patriarchal in 2018? What material difference does it make to the day to day running of the relationship?

It might be a hangover from when marriage was a patriarchial institution, but it’s nonsense to use it as an example of how marriage puts women at a disadvantage now that times have moved on.

I have been in a CP for 12 years and have been to hell and (almost) back for it, because I consider myself very much ‘married’.

Yes, I'm interested to see how many cohabiting heterosexual couples are going to go for this.