Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Civil Partnerships for heterosexual couples?

144 replies

LoopyGremlin · 31/12/2019 13:30

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

OP posts:
kaldefotter · 31/12/2019 14:39

I'm also happy about the change. I didn't like that there were different legal arrangements for same-sex and opposite-sex partnerships, as it allowed CPs to be seen as second-class versions of marriage. I appreciate they were introduced as a stepping stone to marriage equality, but once marriage equality had been achieved, it seemed peculiar to leave CPs as only open to same-sex couples.

I understand why some people would prefer a CP, as it comes without the historical baggage of marriage. And I don't understand why anyone would object to any couple (straight or gay) opting for a CP... it's not a threat to your marriage.

When CPs were first introduced there was speculation that, for example, a pair of unrelated elderly ladies could enter into a CP in order to pass their assets on to the other without inheritance tax. This could be feasible because CPs don't have the expectation of the partnership being 'consummated' and so cannot be annulled like marriages. In practice, I don't think it happened because people recognised that CPs should be seen as a solemn and lifelong partnership, just like marriages.

RiddleyW · 31/12/2019 14:46

When CPs were first introduced there was speculation that, for example, a pair of unrelated elderly ladies could enter into a CP in order to pass their assets on to the other without inheritance tax

Yes there was lots a fuss about this wasn’t there? I don’t know if it ever transpired. Personally I think fair enough if it did.

pointythings · 31/12/2019 15:02

It's just common sense to offer equal options to everyone irrespective of sexuality. I'm from the Netherlands - we've had civil partnerships for all from long before marriage equality and since 2002 everyone has had the choice of a civil partnership or marriage. And what makes you married is NOT the ceremony in whatever religious or other location you have, it's the formalities you go through at your local register office. So religious marriage only = not legally married. And that's the same for everyone. Simple, practical, fair.

Divorce is also much simpler to do.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 31/12/2019 15:12

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.

How do the kids feel about that? How would they feel if he promised them they'd inherit whichever house he owned when he died, but then told them on his deathbed that, as he only had a very large dormer bungalow and not a 'house', they would get nothing?

newmumwithquestions · 31/12/2019 15:12

Some people don't like the sexist connotations behind marriage

^^ this. I am married because a civil partnership wasn’t an option. I would have preferred to have had a CP

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 31/12/2019 15:14

This could be feasible because CPs don't have the expectation of the partnership being 'consummated' and so cannot be annulled like marriages.

I don't think same-sex marriages have that clause in them either, do they? How would you technically define 'non-consummation' for a same-sex couple?

TomCruises · 31/12/2019 15:22

How do the kids feel about that?

Absolutely fine, they’re both coming. We are all adults and there’s no hate or drama thankfully.

How would they feel if he promised them they'd inherit whichever house he owned when he died, but then told them on his deathbed that, as he only had a very large dormer bungalow and not a 'house', they would get nothing?

Moot/irrelevant. For them if my DM became his wife, that would be a broken promise. She won’t be, so it isn’t.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 31/12/2019 15:28

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?

I was wondering the same. If you want a legally-recognised union and the benefits/security that that can bring, you can just have a bare-minimum register office marriage in your jeans and ask passers-by to be your witnesses, and then just refer to each other as partners in everyday life. Plenty of married people refer to their 'partners' rather than 'husband' or 'wife' anyway. Official forms will continue to lump both together in the same category - What practical difference does it make?

What do you understand the terms 'wife' and 'husband' to mean if not the same as you describe anyway, that means you would hate to be one?

Timmythatyou · 31/12/2019 15:32

No difference legally, some people find marriage outdated and sexist because of the history of it ie men having rights over their wives back in the day.
We had a CP when they first came out because we wanted to have kids together and both be recognised as the legally parents and go on birth certificate.But it wasn’t the same as marriage and we did ‘upgrade’ to marriage when full marriage equality came in. Essentially we were issued with a marriage certificate which was backdated to the date of our CP...

user1497207191 · 31/12/2019 15:34

Anything that gives a choice has to be a good thing. For years it was marriage for hetrosexuals and CP for homosexuals, then the latter could get married, now the former can be CP. What's wrong with giving people choice??

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 31/12/2019 15:37

How would they feel if he promised them they'd inherit whichever house he owned when he died, but then told them on his deathbed that, as he only had a very large dormer bungalow and not a 'house', they would get nothing?

Moot/irrelevant. For them if my DM became his wife, that would be a broken promise. She won’t be, so it isn’t.

Fair enough - I'm glad they're happy. If they would have been distraught for her to become his wife but are completely relaxed at her becoming his lifelong legally-recognised partner, functioning to all intents and purposes exactly the same as a wife, then good for them.

It does strike me as quite similar to the vocal objections that many people had when the divorced Prince Charles married Camilla and there were diplomatic attempts to avoid referring to her as his wife - all the 'Princess Consort' stuff - to avoid upsetting the many people who had always hoped Diana would have become Queen. Doesn't make any difference, though - when the Queen dies, Charles will become King - and Camilla, as his legal wife, will be Queen. Even if Diana had lived, she would still never have been Queen, once she was no longer married to the future King.

FruitcakeOfHate · 31/12/2019 15:38

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.

It's still 'a piece of paper' they have to go to court to get.

Lifecraft · 31/12/2019 15:41

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

We have that now. It's called getting married in a registrar office .

user1465335180 · 31/12/2019 15:43

Both DP and I have been married and divorced to other people before we met and neither of us wants to marry again, but at the moment we have no legal standing despite 20 plus years together. A CP will make us next of kin and tidy up the legals. That's all we want

Theloftmonster · 31/12/2019 15:45

We want to get married. DP is unable to physically at the moment. We are thinking of a civil partnership to protect our legal rights until he is well enough to plan a wedding.

LadyTiredWinterBottom2 · 31/12/2019 15:47

I think it's because people think marriage is old fashioned but it seems like the emperor's new clothes to me. The legal differences are interesting... you can cheat in marriage but not a civil partnership? Hmm

lynsey91 · 31/12/2019 15:55

Personally I think Civil Partnerships should have been done away with totally and all couples marry in a church or a register office. If you don't want a fancy and/or religious wedding then just get married in a register office.

TomCruises · 31/12/2019 15:55

I’m glad they’re happy

So am I. I don’t disagree that it’s semantics, but if they, as the only ones who were in receipt of the promise and as highly educated and intelligent adults, wish to exercise a cognitive dissonance in order to accept the legal union and thus choose not hate their DF and become embittered with his and my DM’s relationship, then fair play to them. I’m not going to point it out and wreck the family.

ForalltheSaints · 31/12/2019 16:07

I think the one reason that may not have been mentioned is if someone whose wife or husband has died then meets someone and forms a new relationship, they would not wish to have a second marriage as in some way they could feel it devalued the first. The new relationship is not going to be one with children, for example, whereas their marriage(s) did.

I know of several older couples where one or both partners had been widowed, who I expect might take up this option.

Notenoughbookshelves · 31/12/2019 16:13

Why Lyndsey? It’s not affecting you.People want it and it’s now available. Happy days.

user1497207191 · 31/12/2019 16:17

There's also the issue of your sexuality being known to those who don't need to know, potentially a breach of the GDPR. Under the original system, if you were asked your marital status, saying "married" said you were hetro, and saying "CP" said you were homo/bi or whatever. Now, neither provides that unnecessary information - your sexual orientation can no longer be determined by your "marital" status. That has to be a good thing as it's irrelevant to anyone else.

dottypotter · 31/12/2019 16:19

yes great idea why not.

lynsey91 · 31/12/2019 16:42

No it doesn't affect me but it's pointless. We already have register office marriages if people don't want any religion or want it to be cheap etc.

I'm not sure just how many people did want it but we can't all have what we want anyway can we? The couple that fought so hard for it are, in my opinion, pathetic

Notenoughbookshelves · 31/12/2019 16:52

In this we can though and it hurts nobody so happy days.

OverthinkingThis · 31/12/2019 16:54

I don't think it's about avoiding the religious baggage, as pp have said there's registry office marriages for that. It's about not wanting the historical and cultural baggage associated with being 'wife' or 'husband'. Some people prefer to be partners and quite rightly want that status legally recognised and protected.