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

[VikingVolva]

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!

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/264844/13121016255SSManddcivilpartnershippdifftablee1_.doc

For those asking this is the government table setting out the differences and similarities.

Aside from a lack of patriarchal and religious history, no real differences. Can't call yourself husband and wife, can't dissolve on grounds of adultery.

Adultery would come under "unreasonable behaviour". And I don't want to be someones wife!

"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."

The clue in that sentence is historically. I'm a feminist and am perfectly happy with the idea of marriage because my views represent today's attitudes not misogynistic views from the past. OH and I don't regard ourselves as "belonging" to each other. We are an equal partnership.

I really can't be bothered with overthinking the historic background to everything. Should we have a house with no chimneys because children used to be sent up them to clean them?

There's so much defensiveness when discussing this topic from married people. If you're happy with marriage, and happy to be married, or planning to get married, then that's splendid. No one is saying that there's anything wrong with that or trying to take it away from you. However, not everyone feels the same as you do. Some of us want another option, which is already legally available to people in same sex relationships. There's no good reason not to extend that option to everyone.

Iam I am sure if, like me, you are an atheist but you have parent in laws who are heavily religious, including one that is a reverend that would want to marry you personally in a very traditional way, including having your dad give your hand to your partner to literally give you away, you would feel very different about the historical aspect being, well, historical!

Wouldn't your family still want to follow the same traditions whether your legal joining was called a marriage or a civil partnership, Fruit? I know a few gay couples who have had a traditional "marriage type" ceremony for their civil partnership, sometimes pushed for by their families! And heterosexual couples who married quietly in a registry office with no guests.

I do agree that marriage historically has a bad history of women being property, but surely CP is just renaming things, if the legal picture is the same?

Although I do agree with a pp who says that if this encourages couples to take advantage of the legal benefits of marriage then perhaps it should go ahead, even if it seems unnecessary in a legal sense.

I worry about friends who have given up/ scaled back their career to support their high earning partner, but he "doesn't believe in marriage" so they stay unmarried. Although in some cases I suspect he won't "believe in" CP either....

It would mean MIL can't marry us, so it would take her stamp on things away...

the appeal failed because Parliament might act on this

To be more precise, the appeal failed because the majority of the judges were of the view that the "wait and evaluate" approach being adopted by the government is justified. In essence, the government is looking at the statistics (which show that civil partnerships have fallen significantly since same sex marriage became available) and conducting public consultations before deciding whether to extend civil partnerships to opposite sex couples, abolish them or phase them out. The judges all agreed that abolishing civil partnerships completely would not infringe anyone's human rights.