Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Ruling due today (Tues 21/2) on heterosexual civil partnerships

33 replies

VikingVolva · 21/02/2017 08:39

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39028814

The Court of Appeal is expected to rule later today.

I hope that it is extended to all couples. Fingers crossed!

OP posts:
AllPowerfulLizardPerson · 21/02/2017 09:56

I've just had a BBC pop up saying that they have lost the appeal.

Original poster
VikingVolva · 21/02/2017 10:04

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146

It just says they can't because they are not same sex.

I hope there will be a fuller version of the ruling idc

OP posts:
theredjellybean · 21/02/2017 14:04

I am genuinely puzzled by this case, and an not being controversial for sake of it but wondered why on earth these two people are making such a fuss.
Ok I get that not everyone wants a 'religous' service and marriage ( big white dress/vows before god/in church blah blah) , I certainly was not that keen first time round but went along with it and second as a confirmed aethiest i wanted a simple procedural service thing...which we had in a registry office .
Now why on earth cannot a registry office service be a civil partnership..the argument seemed to me that if you are not legally married you do not get the same rights, such as if a partner dies etc...so if that is worrying you as a couple pop down to the local town hall and have quick non religious civil registry office thing and hey presto problem solved.
this case seems more about two people wanting to grandstand over something....

ClashCityRocker · 21/02/2017 14:11

I don't get it either.

What's the difference between a marriage in the legal sense and a civil partnership?

RedBugMug · 21/02/2017 14:15

I don't get it either.
registry office basic ceremony 100£ or so and job done. you can make it as frilly or plain as you like.

Redcrayons · 21/02/2017 14:22

I heard this earlier genuinely can't understand what difference in practice it would make to them.

Original poster
VikingVolva · 21/02/2017 14:23

Well, as it is potential breach of their human rights, then this is perhaps not the end of the road.

But it does seem a bit odd that (as I read it) the appeal failed because Parliament might act on this. Surely it's either right or wrong? And if the courts found it should be for everyone or no-one, that would bump it up the parliamentary agenda, wouldn't it?

OP posts:
RedBugMug · 21/02/2017 14:42

I thought the civil partnership was created as a stop gap there was no legal basis for same sex marriages?

now that same sex marriage is possible civil partnership is somewhat redundant.

AllPowerfulLizardPerson · 21/02/2017 14:53

It might be redundant for those who want to marry, but it doesn't appear to be redundant for those who want a legal partnership which is not marriage.

Lottapianos · 21/02/2017 14:56

'It might be redundant for those who want to marry, but it doesn't appear to be redundant for those who want a legal partnership which is not marriage.'

Indeed

It's not the end of the road. All 3 judges agreed that the status quo cannot continue and the government need to get on with changing the law. There will be a Supreme Court challenge which could be avoided if the government get on with it

MuchasSmoochas · 21/02/2017 20:07

I just can't see any detriment so why would this be discrimination? It could backfire on them and they could stop more civil partnerships which were an interim measure.

HopelesslydevotedtoGu · 21/02/2017 20:18

those who want a legal partnership which is not marriage

I don't understand what is the difference between civil partnership and marriage, other than having different names? Why would you prefer one over the other?

Heratnumber7 · 21/02/2017 20:23

Agree. What is a marriage, if not a legal partnership.
I don't get the fuss.

PolterGoose · 21/02/2017 20:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Lottapianos · 21/02/2017 21:30

Same here Polter. 12 years here but other than that I could have written your post!

HopelesslydevotedtoGu · 21/02/2017 22:08

I'm still confused. Surely they are just words? Eg I say "my husband" but I could just as easily call him "my partner" whatever our certificate says? If you are married/ civil partnered aren't they interchangeable terms in normal language?

Is it the history of marriage as an institution makes some want to avoid it completely? Eg "wife" might carry patriarchal overtones? Or the history of a religious connection? But isn't civil partnership basically marriage with different terms?

Genuinely interested and still confused.

PolterGoose · 21/02/2017 22:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Iamastonished · 21/02/2017 22:19

"I don't want to be married, I don't want to be a wife or have a husband, but I would like to be able to make our nearly 20 year relationship have legal standing for things like medical/legal/financial decisions/reasons."

Please could you clarify what the legal difference is between a civil partnership and a marriage. I don't understand why someone who wants to have their partnership legally recognised is so against the idea of marriage.

MrsDoylesTeabags · 21/02/2017 22:20

I'm glad I'm not the only confused one.
If you can have a non religious wedding in a registery office, and you can write your own vows.
What is the actual difference between a marriage partnership and a civil partnership?

MrsDoylesTeabags · 21/02/2017 22:21

Cross posted Astonished That's the bit I don't get either

MuchasSmoochas · 21/02/2017 23:15

There is no difference. It's just the name. I really think the human rights claim is tenuous and belittles the reason why we respect human rights. It's a bit me me.

Gileswithachainsaw · 21/02/2017 23:19

I'm a bit thick can someone explain what the difference between a marriage and a civil partnership.

If something was good enough for gay couples or should be good enough for heterosexual couples and vice versa.

Everything should be available for every body.

MaryTheCanary · 22/02/2017 02:50

Legally, I think there is no difference--same rights and protections.

I think privately it's a bit silly (why not just do a registry office marriage?) but you know what, if it persuades even a few people to avail themselves of marriage-style legal protections before having kids/buying property etc. together, it can only be a good thing.

Unfortunately, the majority of people who have children while cohabiting and never get married, are probably very unlikely to do this as well, so it will probably help only a few people.

(Just to clarify: I am not bothered about people "having kids out of wedlock" for old fashioned religious type reasons; I do worry about spousesusually womenhaving children and putting their careers on the back burner without the legal protection of marriage/civil partnership. They can end up badly screwed if the guy dies or leaves them for someone else.)

MuchasSmoochas · 22/02/2017 06:40

Good point Mary .

FruitCider · 22/02/2017 06:49

I've been with my partner for 10 years and would never marry him. Marriage in the U.K. historically was a transfer of property, with the brides father giving the bride away to the groom. I don't belong to anyone, thanks all the same! As a feminist marriage does not sit well with me.

However I would love a legal partnership and celebration. I hope one day to have a civil partnership ceremony!