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?

Can a CP ve given with septation of assets? Otherwise I'm not interested. I agree with others that's it's a marriage with a different name.

What do you mean by separation of assets? Like a prenup? With respect to finances, there's no real difference between marriage and CP. If it isn't to your advantage to marry because you don't want the legal and financial implications, the same will be true of CP.

Also, of course CP has a history, which really shouldn't be erased, and it's nothing like being unmarried, legally speaking.

And marriage is NOT religious or patriarchal (not sure where you got that from?)

A main purpose of inventing marriage was to sign a woman over from belonging to her father to belonging to her husband. That's pretty patriarchal.

Alongside civil partnerships for all we now need to get no fault divorce introduced, fast. No-one should have to jump through hoops to end a relationship that has run it course. For the poster who asked - divorce in the Netherlands is very simple. If it is fully amicable, the couple can use the same solicitor. It takes about 6 weeks and there doesn't have to be fault - just an agreement that the relationship is over.

In the Netherlands it is also now possible to marry without the automatic merging of assets - there's a range of options for planning finances together before getting married, nothing as black and white as a prenup, just a practical approach. The UK needs to wise up.

pointy things that sounds ideal. As much as I love the idea of a wedding and being able to say I'm married and not feel like a fraud, I can't risk my assets in case the worst were to happen.

I think CP should be opened up to more family set-ups. For example three adults where one is the bio parent of a child of a same sex couple. There is no need for a legally binding domestic / household arrangement to replicate the ‘one man and one woman matrimony’ model.

If you want a wedding but not the legalities, why not just have a ceremony of some kind and a do? Get a celebrant to say some words that don't have any legal validity, religious or otherwise, then a knees up. Nothing to prevent you doing it.

'Marital Rape' only entered statute as a crime in 2003 (1991 was the first time a court found it illegal). 25% of people still think it IS legal.

Nope, no patriarchy to see here.

The arguments in favour of same sex marriage made much of the differences between CP and marriage. Those differences didn’t just work one way, so it makes perfect sense for both CP and marriage to be available to both same sex and opposite sex couples.

We're having a CP purely for the financial aspect. Neither of us have any desire to get married (I have been, he hasn't). We've been together for 15 years and adore each other, so why do something we don't want to do now that there is another option? Also I'd be interested to know what a proper marriage is.

amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jul/01/cohabiting-can-beat-civil-partnership

Boxedwine I think that's what we're likely to do. We already call each other husband and wife. Of course when it comes to "formal/legal" situations I have to remember not to call him that. I did while in hospital when having our baby and it confused a couple of midwives.

I'm sure marriage wouldn't change who we are as a couple. Old fashioned or not I still see a wedding as a right of passage that I don't want to miss

I am just wondering for all those worrying about the 'patriarchy' and the 'negative connotations of marriage' ..

Are a single one of you in a position where you have a drastically lower income/assets and no right to the property you live in with the father of your children. ? Or are you in fact equal or higher earners who can actually 'afford ' this particular stand ?

For me the problem lays with women who have an absence of choice.

If you don't NEED the financial and legal protection of marriage but have a partner who would willingly join in a legal union. You are in a great position and I am happy for you.

However , if you shacked up with someone and had kids 'on a promise' or vague idea he would marry you.. and have reduced your income to care for kids, aren't named on the property and have little or no Pension.. this is NOT going to make a marriage dodger change his ways.

This CP will only really benefit women who already have a willing partner to marry and simply wish to choose this form of union.
They will be almost certainly middle class and financially secure.

The real reform needs to be in some form of Legislative change to protect cohabitating women with little or no rights , probably related to the length of relationship, were the lower earning spouse is entitled to some sort of property /pension claim based on number of children and time spent rearing them.

Wow so only middle class couples marry. Who knew?

Sarah why go to the bother of dragging witnesses to a registry office. CP gives you the same benefits.

You still need witnesses for a CP. Or at least you did 10 years ago.

You still do now as far as I can see, and also to do it in a registry office or other venue with a licence having done the giving notice appointment first. The practicalities are barely different to marriage. Which is one of the reasons that although I'd have concerns about people being opted into a marriage type contract when they haven't actively chosen it, I think the prediction that CP will mostly benefit couples who were doing ok anyway is probably true.

It will benefit those that want protection but not marriage. Who cares how many.

I can afford this particular 'stand', yes. I'm the higher earner and we have our split in the house protected by deed of trust based on contributions. But that would go whether CP existed or not, and I'd be able to walk away whether CPed, married or co-habiting..

But CPs, as a policy, aren't designed to make a 'marriage dodger' change their ways; they are to offer equal access to legal provisions. They can't make people access those legal provisions.

I absolutely agree that broader legislation needs to change to protect vulnerable women (combined with MUCH better financial education and an undersatnding of vulnerabilities) but also think under the next 10 years of conservatism you are very unlikely to get that change- quite the opposite. We're likely to see more provisions like UC and Child Benefit caps coming in which harm vulnerable women or force them to remain in abusive relationships.

This isn't that policy instrument though, and I don't think anyone has claimed it is.

Notenoughbookshelves don't be obtuse. You are a good debater.. so that was uncalled for.

My point is that those who have the LUXURY to refuse marriage on the grounds of a perfectly valid belief that marriage has patriarchal connotations, are unlikely to be those with a NEED to legalise their position. The former will almost certainly have financial parity already and good earning power.

It makes no sense to me. I don’t understand why civil partnerships weren’t just binned when gay marriage was legalised.

Xone4flaneur
Yes, your points are spot on. Except yesterday the news mentioned several times that 'this change will provide a legal framework to protect those people currently in 'common law' relationships. When it absolutely won't.

If s/he doesn't want a marriage due to wishing to keep assets protected from the other partner. CP won't change a thing.
The only discernible difference is that anyone 'using' the connotations of 'patriarchy' / 'it's just a bit of paper' or 'I don't want a song and dance' ...
Will now need a different excuse...

But a civil partnership means we could pop down in casual clothes, sign he papers and carry on with our day

Just like a registry office marriage.

Did it really? That's worrying. I spoke to someone the other week who was under the impression that common law marriage was being legalised, and turned out they meant CP. Had hoped that was an isolated incident and the change would cause more benefit than confusion but jeez, if the news is saying that, it isn't a good sign. We seem to make a societal specialism of getting this stuff arse about face. Which channel?

I very much doubt that men who are opposed to marriage, would be interested in a civil partnership.