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 ..

My mistake - every marriage ceremony was what I meant to say. But regarding every day life there is still the assumption that women bear the brunt of housework and child-rearing. The only difference afaics in 50 years is that now women work outside the home as well! A CP has no previous connotations attached.

I’m surprised the government has made this decision because I expected them to achieve equality between same and opposite sex couples by abolishing CP.

CP was a fudge introduced by the Labour government because they wanted to allow same-sex marriage but Blair, being God squad and terrified of the Mail, believed that the churches and the right-wing tabloids were not ready for it.

If the decision to open CP to opposite-sex couples it could do a lot of social good by persuading cohabiting couples with children that they can formalise their relationship without the perceived rigmarole and baggage of marriage.

CPs were based on the legal framework on marriage when they were being devised, with some key differences.

On that basis, what makes marriage patriarchial and CPs not? Why are people so keen to harp on about the unpleasant (and very real) history of marriage, conveniently forgetting that CPs were only created to avoid giving gay people the same rights?

A CP has no previous connotations attached.

Well, as PeachMelba78 put it, actually it has some really rather nasty connotations attached.

@PeachMelba78 I feel for same-sex couples who have not been able to have a religious marriage. I am not comfortable with the Church response that they accept the individual, but expects them to have a platonic relationship. Celibacy is a vocation and not something that should be imposed on gay people, so the Church should find a way of welcoming people in gay relationships.

Abolishing CP would have caused a major clusterfuck as all the CP-ed same sex couples would now suddenly find themselves no longer legally committed and have to go get married. It does make more sense just to extend it to everyone.

I've no objection to this; what other couples choose to do is not my business. I'm just really puzzled as to why historic patriarchal connotations are unacceptable, but very recent homophobic ones are fine. It's a philosophical point, though.

I'm sure some heterosexual couples will make use of this but in the many cases where the man is dragging his feet because he knows what marriage actually is and doesn't want to make that commitment....I can't see this making any difference. It'll still be the "piece of paper" and "don't need to prove our love" bullshittery.

A PP made the excellent point that universities were built on the patriarchy. Is anyone on this thread who is opposed to marriage also opposed to going to university?

A PP made the excellent point that universities were built on the patriarchy. Is anyone on this thread who is opposed to marriage also opposed to going to university?

It wasn't me, but I make that point on every "marriage is patriarchal" thread. Same goes for Parliament, but I've never seen a woman refusing to vote just because it wasn't always a female right.

I was the poster who initially raised the point about universities as historically patriarchal institutions - but doubtless inspired by Ayn's excellent posts on previous threads debating this issue!

Thank you, banana

It is simply not possible to live in our world today and avoid everything that has a patriarchal history. Our legal system, government and pretty much every law all have their roots in a world ruled by white men. We can't change history, all we can do is evolve. Marriage, like the other institutions, has evolved. Yet for some reason it's the only one that gets so much objection.

Just to add (sorry!) that the reason that we had a CP was that my wife and I wanted to have children together and we both wanted to be on the birth certificate (especially important in our case as we have a known donor who is involved in our children’s lives)..

Unlike mixed sex parents, there is no other way for both parents to be on the birth certificate, and as we were both over 30 we did not want to wait for same sex marriage to become legal as we could have then been too old to have children.

So we had to compromise, on yet another issue that most people take for granted.

But regarding every day life there is still the assumption that women bear the brunt of housework and child-rearing. The only difference afaics in 50 years is that

But what has being married got to do with that?

There's plenty of threads on MN where women who aren't married bear the brunt of housework and child rearing. It doesn't seem to discriminate whether it's a DP or a DH who's not pulling their weight

The difference is that if a woman is financially dependent on their DP as a result of taking on the lion's share of child rearing, unless they have a legal cohabitation agreement in place, they have less financial protection if they split up or their DP dies if they're not married.

I don't understand this, tbh. It's marriage in all but name.

I can't argue this any more! Patriarchy is still practised within marriage. Maybe not yours or your friends. Look at your parents, other posters on mn boards etc . It still happens that's why it's held up as an example not so the other examples given.

But Catherine, there’s no magic wand that’s waved over a couple once they get married that turn a previously equal co-habiting relationship into one which the woman is automatically downtrodden simply because she’s a wife.

An unequal relationship will always be unequal regardless of whether it’s a marriage, a CP or just cohabiting.

I’d say you can’t argue this any more because you don’t actually have a valid argument.

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.

Leaving aside the fact that public services do not cover the cost of administering divorces, presumably there are going to be costs incurred by civil partners who want to dissolve their partnerships?
I imagine there will be still be legal issues to be addressed such as dividing joint assets etc given that civil partnerships, like marriages, are legal contracts between two people.

I'm married but am most certainly not a chattel, I don't wear a wedding ring and my DH didn't have to ask my father's permission to marry me. People seem to have all sorts of false perceptions of marriage. However, if the creation of CPs for heterosexual couples will help ensure that more women get legal protection, then all to the good.

Incidentally, in Scotland, where I am, the names of both parents go on the marriage certificate and have done so for generations. (Very helpful when you are researching your family tree as well as being right and proper!).

Catherine the point is that it’s also practised outside of marriage.

If a woman is going to be beholden to a man, these boards have shown that they absolutely don’t need to be married and in many cases it’s better for the woman trying to get out if they are!

@PeachMelba78 thanks for your very eloquent and moving posts

The CP was a cowardly concession to homophobic Tories to make it more palatable for gay people to actually be treated as equal citizens in the eyes of the law.

I was thrilled to attend friends' CPs and know that they had the legal recognition of their relationship that was so long overdue, but it saddened me that they were 'othered' and not given full marriage equality

Most of my friends have since upgraded their CPs to marriages once the law came in, for similar reasons as you describe.

It's slightly different, most markedly that adultery isn't grounds to break it off (its entire purpose was to allow legal commitment while denying the romantic/sexual element of the relationship, after all). It's also not possible to have any legally recognised religious ceremony for a CP. This might appeal to that weird but vocal group which appears to have an issue with other people choosing religious weddings, even though the civil marriage service has no religious element at all.

Seriously, the number of people I've seen on Facebook tonight whinging that marriage has "religious overtones". No marriage has religious overtones unless the people in it choose it. These people are effectively protesting about other people's right to practise their own religion within their own personal affairs. I would say that these people are all just ill informed, but half of them are married!

Patriarchy is still practised within marriage.

I assure you that sexist nobs act like sexist nobs whether they're married or not.

Thanks banana.
I really want people to remember that LGBT people still don’t have equality in this country, let alone elsewhere, including marriage rights, adoption and religion.
People whitewash what we have been through and what we are currently fighting, and choose to see us as equals when our every day rights are still not so.

It sticks in my craw when the thread is titled ‘Finally’ when we LGBT folk have fought for decades, and continue to fight, for anything near equality with heterosexuals.

Patriarchy is still practised within marriage. Maybe not yours or your friends. Look at your parents, other posters on mn boards etc . It still happens that's why it's held up as an example not so the other examples given.

Yes and it's practiced outside marriage

A relationship can be unequal without marriage

And an equal relationship doesn't suddenly become unequal by virtue of signing a marriage contract

Having children is far more likely to cause a shift in equality within a relationship than a change in marital status

And arguably a man who refuses to marry his partner if she is the more financially vulnerable partner because he doesn't want her to be afforded the rights and responsibilities of marriage is a pretty significant problem!

It's just virtue signalling how non- conventional you are

It sticks in my craw when the thread is titled ‘Finally’ when we LGBT folk have fought for decades, and continue to fight, for anything near equality with heterosexuals.

I get what you mean- a few people have mentioned “equality” with reference to today’s decision and it does have a whiff of straight privilege about it.

There is nothing the patriarchy would love more than for women to carry on taking the financial hit and doing the bulk of housework and childcare, with no legal recognition or protection. I don't understand - literally cannot fathom - how anyone can put themselves in this position and then turn around and say they're sticking it to the patriarchy.

I see a lot of posters on this thread saying that marriage is outdated and out of touch, but when asked for their solution, it is often "be richer", which doesn't strike me as a feasible alternative.