Civil Partnerships for heterosexual couples?

[LoopyGremlin]

Perhaps I don’t know enough about it, but why would some couples prefer this to a simple, low-key registry office marriage?

I am curious too. I got married at a registrar office and why there is legal bits you have to say you don't have to do vows (we didn't), you could turn up in your pyjamas (we didn't but I would of prefered to) and you just need a couple of witnesses. The whole thing can take ten minutes. What exactly is the difference?

I can remember the 'equal love' campaign. The idea was that it would stop marking out homosexuality as not being a part of mainstream society. But that was before gay couples could get married.

But many people felt that they didn't want to take part in something that some couples were denied.

Some people don't like the sexist connotations behind marriage and the associated traditions.

France has had this available since 1999 and many couples opt for this rather than marriage.

'While there are legal bits' not 'why'

DH and I would have loved to have one of these. We had to get married before we were ready so that we could stay in the same country, and although we tried to be practical about it it was not fun!
Lots of people want access to the practical benefits of marriage without the fuss of tradition.

It is an excellent idea. When you hear the couples talking it is so logical. They are giving each other legal protection without all the usual objections to marriage. Might suit the army of me around who swerve marriage. Only problem is, there is the Legitimacy Act which makes some of the children illegitimate and so lesser rights, needs sorting. It is fair that heterosexual and homosexual couple have the same choices

I don't get it either. And it seems a bit offensive to gay couples as well - heterosexual couples have always had the option to have whatever sort of wedding they want, however low key they want, which basically give the same rights and protections as a civil partnership. Gay couples have only recently had that luxury, and even now don't have the right to whatever sort of wedding/honeymoon they want. Civil partnerships only exist because gay couples didn't have the right to get married. So all this talk of a struggle is a bit off to be honest.

On the other hand, it makes sense for heterosexual and same sex couples to have access to the same things 🤷‍♀️

Saw a picture on twitter of a couple having a civil partnership and she was wearing a wedding dress

Lots of people want access to the practical benefits of marriage without the fuss of tradition.

But you don't need to fuss of tradition for a wedding these days if you don't want it anyway.

It's obviously just the principle of it for these people, which is fair enough, but it's not exactly a huge civil rights issue.

I'd have preferred it to marriage becasue I hate the whole historical baggage of marriage.

I'd have liked all couples, regardless of sexuality, to have a choice of marriage and civil partnership.

But a low-key civil wedding (the couple and two witnesses) has no tradition, fuss or objectionable elements beyond those of a civil partnership that I can see. It's nothing more than a legal arrangement.

I have no desire to be a 'wife' and my partner has no desire to be my 'husband'. We are partners in life, in parenting, and in financial affairs. We would however very much like the legal protections that civil partnership would give us.

I have no desire to be a 'wife' and my partner has no desire to be my 'husband'. We are partners in life, in parenting, and in financial affairs.

What's the difference?

Equality.

If same-sex couples can choose between marriage, CP or neither, then opposite sex couples should be able to do the same.

My mum and long term (male) partner are having a Civil Partnership.

It’s because he promised his kids that he wouldn’t remarry when divorcing his ex 15+ years ago, but after 10+ years now with DM, they want a legal union due to the fact there are joint property and assets.

I think for some people they don't like the patriarchal history that surrounds marriage. Even if you do it in your own way, for some they may still see it as participating in something that doesn't sit comfortably with them.

Civil Partnerships afford hetero couples the same legal protections without compromising their views.

I've been looking at the differences:

Civil partnerships have no prescribed form of words

Marriages are recorded on paper, civil partnerships electronically.

Marriages don't have the mother's name on the certificate, civil partnership documents to.

A marriage can be annulled if once of the parties was suffering from a STD at the time of the marriage, or if it hasn't been consummated. A civil partnership can't be annulled on those grounds

In the event of a divorce/dissolution: adultery can be used as a reason the marriage has broken down but can't be used as evidence in a civil partnership.

I’m hoping we’ll see a lot fewer threads from women whose partners object to marriage for the current multitude of reasons that are trotted out.

I have no idea what the difference is but then I don’t see marriage = wedding. I didn’t take my husband’s name, object to being a Mrs, and I interchangeably use partner and husband. I can see why some people would chose a civic partnership because they don’t like the history behind marriage. I hate it a lot too but I’m only ok because I see it just as a registration of partnership already.

Ah well I hope the couple who fought all the way to the Supreme Court are happier for it Can't see it myself except that they can tell themselves that they fought the establishment and won. But as a pp said, I shouldn't care because it doesn't affect me.

And men don't get married because they want to protect their assets. They're not going to enter into an identical in all by name civil partnership.

It's marriage by a different name. But if people feel so strongly about the word marriage and associated 'traditions', and this makes them happier, let them have their way.

I'm happily married, in a church, but would rather the legal and romantic sides of marriage were divided.

I’d probably have done a civil partnership rather than marriage if they’d been around when I got married. Although I don’t know if there are jurisdictions that don’t treat it the same which is potentially a disadvantage.

Blaue many women don’t want to get married. And as for assets most couples I know have joint mortgages and very few assets to squabble over. Men won’t want to get married for the same reason women don’t.

We didn’t want to marry, would have preferred a cp, gave up waiting and did it whilst travelling in a city hall in the US.

It also means that now, by ticking Civil Partnership on any kind of form, you're not automatically stating your sexuality by doing so.

Civil partnerships don't come with an uncomfortable history. I don't want to get married but would consider a civil partnership. I'm happy about this change.

We are doing this rather than getting 'married' as I hate the patriarchal history of marriage. Some have argued civil partnerships are homophobic as same sex couples shouldn't have been denied the right to marry, which I agree with, but marriage is also homophobic then.

I would have had a civil partnership of they'd been available when I got married. I dislike the patriarchal history of marriage and would prefer to be a legal partner rather than a wife with all the baggage that can bring.