to think that lots of women will now be able to get financial and legal security

[PerspicaciaTick]

without having to get married.

From tomorrow you can give notice for your opposite sex civil partnership. You can actually form your partnership from January.

No need for a verbal contract or a ceremony (unless you want one). Just sign the bit of paper with your witnesses. No need to spend a fortune - you can do it all for less than £150 (or you can still go the whole hog if you want).

I think it will be really popular - or am I misreading the situation?

Equally, it's the reality that there are often caring and reproductive penalties falling on women that you can't necessarily opt out of (sometimes not even by not actually having kids!) and there are all kinds of structural reasons why these exist
Really, what can't you opt out of? Who is forcing women to not work hard at school, not got to Uni, or take other route, work FT, apply for promotions, opt to have children later, or only 1/2, or not at all?

The truth that many women won't admit is that many want their cake and eat it. They want to be the one to spend the most time with their kids, whilst still ensuring they can benefit as much financially in the instance of separation.

If you have stict views about being secure and self-reliant, don't pick a partner who wants you to be a sahm, who won't support you to with your career. They are many men who are very happy for equal roles, happy to help as much at home and with the kids whilst sharing the financial responsibilities.

It's before having children that women need to make sure these are the values of the men they pick as partner.

But why sacrifice financial independence at all when you get married? If you want to have children, 'maternity' leave can be shared between the parents. If women get together with a higher earning partner and choose to sacrifice their own careers because they enjoy the lifestyle afforded by the partner, then they risk paying the price if their partner deserts them.

Marrying/civilly partnering a man doesn't obviate the risks of sacrificing your own financial independence. Even if you have children to give an ongoing claim on his income, you're dependent on your partner keeping his job. There was a thread here last week about the implications of a man who'd been a high earner packing in his job altogether to retrain - leaving his income and CMS payments at zero.

I really hope we don't see a rash of civil partnerships for the sake of supposed financial security alone. Yes, the additional security might be a bonus, but no one should willingly give up the ability to be self-supporting if needed.

Anyone would think it’s the 1950s. Much better for women to maintain their own financial independence than to rely on a partner.

It is exceptionally naive to think university is a viable choice for everyone, or that all graduates can go into well paying jobs. The reality is that our economy is not structured to allow everyone to earn well, which is why for lower income women the main advantage of marriage or CP is often access to the full range of state bereavement benefits, given that partners often are low earners too. For a whole swathe of the population, earn yourself financial security is just implausible. Men too, but occupations done disproportionately by women tend to be financially devalued. And you can't necessarily even opt out of this by choosing something else, because more women in a job often has a cumulative detrimental effect on pay: look at teachers.

And certainly, most women can decide not to have children, but that doesn't actually insulate you from being discriminated against anyway because someone sees you as a walking womb.

There will always be women who don't want to have a career or make work a big part of their lives. These will accept either living on a very low income (indeed, some are happy on very little money), or take the risk of being dependent on a partner whilst working in lower paid jobs, often part-time.

There will be women who start on a low wage having gained little qualifications, but who will choose to delay having children so they have a chance to retrain or dedicate much effort to their job and grab opportunities for promotions.

There will be women who will make having a good career and financial Independence a priority and will get the qualifications earlier on, will have children but continue to work earning a good income.

The point is that as women (and men), we do have options. What we don't have is the luxury of picking what is easier or makes us happier, whilst also getting the gift of financial independence, which is why some women seem to think they should be entitled to.

If that's the point, its not a particularly good one because we don't all have options. And even though some of us do, the way in which our economy is structured means some people are always going to be low income. Because work done by women is more likely to be devalued merely because it's us doing it, that means this is a particular issue for women as a cohort. Your analysis can either accept this or it can be lacking. Those are the choices.

But if we are saying that, for women who have limited options, the only solution is to marry or civilly partner someone who can earn more, that will perpetuate the situation you are describing.

And marriage/civil partnership isn't an option that's there for the taking - it's dependent on finding someone who is willing to marry/civilly partner you. Ditto being dependent on a partner to whom you are not legally tied. Until that happens, women who are considering that route will have no choice but to be financially independent, even if at a level that provides a lifestyle of bare subsistence. However basic your claim to independence, it shouldn't be sacrificed upon marriage/CP.

We aren't saying it's the only option, or I'm not anyway. I'm saying that the assumption that financial security is within a woman's
grasp through earning more is inaccurate, over-simplification. All of the one size fits all explanations are unhelpful.

It's equally inaccurate to say that financial security is within a woman's grasp through civil partnership.

I'm looking forward to doing this with my partner of 7 years. We are both financially independent but want each other to have medical/ financial rights.

Having known a lot of people like this over the years it has been notable how many drop the strict moral objection with a new partner and marry.

I've noticed that. And noticed that a lot of men who say they aren't ready to have a child will get someone else pregnant very quickly after their relationship ends.

@JacobReesClunge if I'm honest, no I haven't thought about it much.

If I do think about it then my gut would be to feel that the history of CP is much shorter and less tarnished with negative associations than the history of marriage.
It is shit that it was given to gay couples as a pale shadow of marriage, but the fact that married women were legally owned by their men in this country until fairly recently, still are in other countries, marital rape etc, all of that for centuries is bigger baggage IMO.

To me (admittedly viewed through hetero privilege, though about 50% of my good friends are gay and we talk about these things) CP was a clumsy attempt to right past wrongs. It didn't do it perfectly, but it was coming from a good if slightly misguided place. To me marriage historically was essentially about signing a women over as property, there is a huge difference. All the stuff about women being given away, taking their husband's name, even the bit where they kiss was traditionally worded to the man - you may now kiss your bride. No question of whether the wife consents to being kissed! The man got permission from another man so it's fine.

That is such a tarnished history to me that if I can get legal etc protection in a way that side steps that then I will. CP is an imperfect alternative

Not rtft but know 3 men who have done this 'And noticed that a lot of men who say they aren't ready to have a child will get someone else pregnant very quickly after their relationship ends.'

All told their first wife weren't ready for kids, for years
All waited till first wife was prob going to be too old realistically to meet sometime else and have kids
All had affairs went off with younger women immediately had babies

It's a dick move.

Anyway great news about CP I'd have had one if available.

Marriage women used to literally be property still are literally or in practice in many countries around world.

No doubt it has massive baggage and of a different nature to the baggage that has been said of CPs.

Men who avoid marriage to avoid responsibility will continue to do so for the same reason: they want a woman to grow, birth and raise their children, to keep their house, have sex when they want and to take care of them ... all for free. Free to walk out and leave her with nothing when the kids leave home.

The answer isnt new forms of marriage (CP) and especially isn't making defacto relationships legally binding. The answer is a long standing, widespread, well funded, public education programme - to properly inform all prospective SAHP (mostly women) of their respective legal rights (and otherwise) under different relationship arrangements - when he walks out and withholds money or changes the locks on what turns out not to be the family home, but his house, alone.

This whole "it's just a piece of paper" business needs to be crushed. Men already know what marriage really means ... it's why some avoid it so diligently.

Leaving aside the arguments about independence, I can see why some people might prefer CP to marriage - for one thing, it's suitable for platonic partnerships. Both 'institutions' have tarnished elements in their histories, I suppose it's a question of which associations (if any) are the less painful for the couple.

I don't agree that CP is a money-saver for the ceremony itself - there's nothing to stop marrying couples having a basic sign-the-forms ceremony at the register office.

Looking online, it seems the only legal difference is that a marriage can be dissolved on the grounds of adultery or venereal disease, whereas a CP can't. However, with no-fault divorces on the horizon, I imagine that difference will become obsolete, and the difference between the two will become purely symbolic and cosmetic.

Well no it isn't screamingvalenta because it is within some women's grasp. It would be equally inaccurate if we were suggesting it was a catch all solution.

Thanks for your thoughts owls, especially as I was just being nosey! I myself regard the baggage of CP as more problematic simply because it's so much more recent, but I am glad that you've considered it and weighed everything up.The best of luck with your CP when it happens.

I'm very interested in this. Off for a Google.
Where we live a registry office wedding is £500 at the cheapest. That's just for the legal bit. In a destination town that international tourists love. In the U.K.

Jacob Neither marriage nor civil partnership is a guarantee of financial or legal security while those things depend on your partner's income/wealth. The only way of securing those things is to earn them independently. That might not be possible for everyone, but to say that civil partnership means lots of women will now be able to get financial and legal security is grossly inaccurate and, as pps have commented, suggestive of a 1950s mindset.

Oof! Maybe cheaper in the nearest less pretty town?

Why is it grossly inaccurate? I accept that we don't know the numbers but why exactly are you so sure that it won't be possible to obtain financial and legal security through CP? Particularly given that legal security can be rather widely defined. Presumably you have a definition in mind if you've such strong views.

I quite understand finding this rather 50s and depressing, but that actually has nothing to do with whether it's true or not.

Owlsintowels, do you really feel that simply changing the name of marriage to a different word is enough to erase that historical baggage? Because that's all that a civil partnership is. It's literally an exact replica of marriage, but called by a different name.

Because while you are dependent on someone else, you are reliant on them continuing to earn money, which might not happen for all sorts of reasons. Yes, if you CP with someone who is asset rich, that might offer security (providing he lets you put your name on the house deeds so he can't secretly remortgage everything etc.) but you cannot claim to be financially and legally secure unless you have an income and assets in your own name to back this up.

Surely platonic partners can marry anyway? They don't oblige you to prove you are having sex to marry!
I probably won't civil partner or marry as I have far more assets than my partner ( but we are both well off) so no benefit to marrying only financial risk if we part. Both want to leave assets to our respective nephews and nieces.
I can't see much point in civil partnerships for opposite sex, do many sane sex couples do it now? It seems to really just be for middle class guardian readers rather than to protect any vulnerable people.
And it has a bad reputation as being a lesser thing we will allow same sex couples to have as not allowed to marry. Ie an out dated concept we have now moved away from.

We chose it instead of marriage because of the history of marriage as an institution.
It works for us.
Only 6 others on the same quarter as ours though.