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?

Today program and Women's hour. Both excellent programs .. it was framed in such away to have us believe that most cohabitating couples would leap at this chance once the connotations of marriage are removed.

Which to be fair it will to a MINORITY who are currently in the luxurious position of choice.

If however you live with someone and are dependent on his/her money/home .. then it will do fuck all.

People saying that they want none of the traditions or don’t acknowledge the notion of husband or wife.
Just get married at a Register Office. It’s literally a civil partnership. None of the man and wife or in sickness and in health stuff.
Just a civil partnering.

Yes, that's all a bit confusing. Although accompanied by pictures of people at the registry office so hopefully that's a whacking great clue you actually have to do something.

I'm still annoyed we have to do anything- the house we bought jointly at way under the IHT threshold (way way under) have paid a mortgage on together and renovated together could be subject to a massive bill if one of us dies at a time the property market is looking buoyant. I also wouldn't trust DP's mum to make the decision on turning the machine off...
I would much rather a radical reform of cohabitation law. But here we are.

I like the sound of a civil partnership more than a marriage, it is a more modern way & takes away the idea that a woman belongs first to her father who gives her away to her husband. The fact that the certificate has both parents names on it brings it up to date as well.

Why are you annoyed we “have to do anything”? How would that work for people wanting to protect their assets by not entering into a legally binding contract? You can marry or have a civil partnership @Zone4flaneur, surely that’s enough choice for anyone. ,

I have run through the legal side and cannot see any real difference. However if people think they are superior to others for choosing one form or the other, (or neither), so be it.
And the "legal protection" is also a "legal obligation". You can choose what you want to risk.

I’ve never wanted a wedding but somehow feel like getting married without any formalities or festivities seems a bit wrong, or would at least invite a lot of questions from friends and family. Whereas I feel we could get a CP and treat it more as ‘paperwork’ formalising a long standing relationship.

Just get married at a Register Office. It’s literally a civil partnership. None of the man and wife or in sickness and in health stuff.
Just a civil partnering.

Pretty sure it is. Also ends with a marriage certificate proudly bearing bride and grooms’ fathers’ names but not mothers. It’s a legal marriage, not a civil partnership. That’s the whole fucking point.

People saying that they want none of the traditions or don’t acknowledge the notion of husband or wife.
Just get married at a Register Office. It’s literally a civil partnership. None of the man and wife or in sickness and in health stuff.
Just a civil partnering.

Not true. If you get married, in legal terms you are a husband/wife.

While we are married I know my husband would have preferred this.

Even though we married in a registry office for the legal benefits (and I wanted the commitment) he still sees marriage as a religious and patriarchal concept. Personally I don't see the difference between marriage and civil partnership so had this been available 18 years ago we probably would have done this and both been happy with it

What do you mean by in legal terms?

Would have had a CP had it been available15 years ago. DH and I kept our names (and titles), never shared a bank account etc. We did it for legal protection which a CP now provides.

Also ends with a marriage certificate proudly bearing bride and grooms’ fathers’ names but not mothers

Plenty of countries use the names of both parents. So maybe that could be changed.

All 'marriages' shouod now be civil partnerships imo. Marriage vows or whatever other bollocks no one pays attention to can be an add on as the couples wish. 'Marriage' really needs to be retired now CP's exist for all.

So, having got your choice, you want to remove everyone else’s? Christ, people are weird.

"None of the man and wife or in sickness and in health stuff.
Just a civil partnering." Also not true. You have to say vows during a registry office wedding. You just get to choose between three options and they're all equally as vomit/rage inducing.

@AlsoHuman there are a number of countries that recognise 'defacto' relationships including Australia, parts of Canada, Israel and India.

This is a much preferable situation because it avoids the risk other posters have been talking about where women are left vulnerable thinking they have a 'commonlaw' relationship when in reality they have no protection.

You usually have to pass legal tests such as length of cohabitation , but don't actively register a partnership.

That is a terrible idea given the lack of international recognition of UK CP crying. Lots of us want to know that when we travel with our partners, our relationships will be recognised.

I've no objection to people who prefer the institution and history of CP having that as an option, but I shan't be giving up any of my rights.