Why go for a civil partnership rather than a civil marriage.

[paddlingwhenIshouldbeworking]

I was just reading about same sex couples being able to have a civil partnership instead of a marriage. I'm not religious at all and had a very low key civil ceremony because we were so busy with other stuff at the time we wanted to get married and planning a wedding always seemed like more of an ordeal than an ambition. We told the vast majority of people after the fact and never got round to having a party (have a lovely and long lasting marriage).

I'm fascinated by words so have no particular opinion other than wondering why.

I remember thinking at the time that it was the establishment being particularly awkward to create civil partnerships and why not simply legalise lesbian and gay marriages. Clearly there was still an intent on keeping these relationships separate and different so placating those who were opposed. In fact it was an own goal because it created an alternative to marriage, thereby making 'marriage' weaker. But as they are in fact the same legally, I keep going round in circles and think I must be missing something.

I guess what I am wondering is in what way are they different.

And if I do have an opinion on them its a positive one because it diminishes the 'otherness' of them as originally created. What I can't get my head around is the arguments I've read by heterosexual couples which don't acknowledge this at all and say they want a civil partnership because they are not religious and don't want a 'wedding'.

I don't understand it at all. What is the difference now?

It's a couple who've driven this forward. The guy was on the radio all pleased that they'd won and all I could think was, "So you won't marry her in a registry office but you'll do exactly the same thing and sign the same contract - what, in a registry office?"

I don't get it either. If anyone can provide a bullet point list of what the differences are I'd be grateful.

There are very few differences. These are mainly around the details of the ceremony. The more substantive differences are:

• you cannot annul a civil partnership on the basis that one of the partners had a communicable STD at the time of the ceremony

• you cannot dissolve a civil partnership on the grounds of adultery

Quite a few people I have heard pushing for civil partnerships as an alternative to marriage seem to think that all marriage ceremonies are religious. Indeed, I remember hearing a radio programme where a woman argued that, if she married her boyfriend, she would be getting married in the sight of God and, as an atheist, she didn't want to do that. She got a round of applause. It seems that many people don't realise that, unless your wedding takes place in a church, there is nothing religious about the marriage ceremony at all.

Personally, now that we have same sex marriage, I don't see the point of civil partnerships even for same sex couples. I would abolish them completely.

I don't see the point of civil partnerships at all and think they should have been done away with totally.

If you want the benefits of marriage then get married. It doesn't have to be in a church, it doesn't have to be in front of hundreds of people and it doesn't have to cost a small fortune

A civil partnership ceremony does not include any vows at all if you don't want it to. This might sound silly but is hugely appealing. DP and I recently had a statutory wedding for legal reasons and we still had to hold hands and look at each other and say vows. I felt like an absolute tit doing it and really wished we didn't have to. We'd have done a civil partnership if we could have because we feel it more adequately reflects what we wanted - just to make a legal contract between us.

The minimum vows for a wedding are a declaration that you don't know of any reason why you cannot legally be married and the words, "I (full name) take you (full name) to be my wedded wife/husband". That's it. Any other vows are superfluous. You can include them if you want or skip them completely. And there is no requirement in law that you hold hands and look at each other whilst saying the words. The registrar cannot insist on anything other than the above.

Well all I know is they told us we had to do it and say the "I Thurlow solemnly swear" etc

Quite a few people I have heard pushing for civil partnerships as an alternative to marriage seem to think that all marriage ceremonies are religious.

I thought the main reason was that marriage is a patriarchal construct - religion or not ?

Thurlow - I'm not disputing that happened, just setting out what is actually required for a minimal ceremony. That's all the registrar needs to hear. If the registrar insisted on more they were wrong.

DGRossetti - I've heard all kinds of arguments. I don't happen to agree that marriage is a patriarchal construct but it is a reasonable argument. The argument that all marriages are religious, however, is clearly wrong but it is a view that I find suprisingly widely held.

It’s been around for quite a while where I live. Two advantages I know of are that it’s a handy thing to do before buying a house/having a child together, and once it’s dissolved you don’t have a civil status of “divorced”. It doesn’t have the “forever and ever” connotations of marriage.

Having a child together IS “forever and ever”, obviously! I was thinking more of splitting up after having bought/sold a house

It is technically semantics but I would/will have a civil partnership over a marriage - I know that civil marriage ceremonies are not religious but that’s why I think it’s silly to call them marriages. To me, marriage is a religious sacrament and I don’t really understand why we call them marriages when they take place outside of churches. The question is the wrong way round to me - I’d ask ‘why would you get married unless it’s a religious ceremony?’
The sort of French equivalent of civil partnerships have been going for ages and is very popular.
I suspect our established amalgamation of church and state is why we are able to have a legal marriage in a church whereas in France Italy etc you have to have a legal state marriage and a church ceremony if you want one... anyone know anything about that?

“The argument that all marriages are religious, however, is clearly wrong but it is a view that I find suprisingly widely held.”

Presumably some of these people, like me, are aware that marriages can take place with no religious vows in a registry office but see the concept of “marriage” as traditionally/inherently religious. I could as easily say ‘if you want a marriage do it in a church where you’re supposed to’ as people could say ‘get married if you want the protections of marriage’.

I suppose civil marriage must have been new and controversial at some point - I can’t find out when it was introduced but interestingly Wikipedia tells me that common law marriage was only outlawed in 1753 when it become a requirement to be married in a religious ceremony recognised by the state.

This is really interesting actually www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17351133
1836 non religious marriage services were legalised after about 100 years of state enforced religious ceremonies and many centuries prior to that of common law marriage.
Maybe they should bring back common law marriage as that’s the most established precedent! If anything that article shows how much marriage has been adapted to the period so in that case it’s fitting we should throw civil partnerships into the mix.

Presumably some of these people, like me, are aware that marriages can take place with no religious vows in a registry office but see the concept of “marriage” as traditionally/inherently religious. I could as easily say ‘if you want a marriage do it in a church where you’re supposed to’ as people could say ‘get married if you want the protections of marriage’.

Why? Which religion do you think "owns" marriage? Haven't you noticed that people from different cultures all over the world get married? Marriage predates recorded history, so it definitely wasn't "invented" by any of the major religions.

Sorry, this is a bugbear of mine - I've heard so many people who say gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married because "marriage is a religious thing". No, it isn't!

The minimum vows for a wedding are a declaration that you don't know of any reason why you cannot legally be married and the words, "I (full name) take you (full name) to be my wedded wife/husband

I’m not sure that’s true. Jewish marriages are legally binding, there’s no need for a separate ceremony and there are no vows at all. The only English part of the whole ceremony is signing the register. The rest is a wedding contract in Hebrew which is read out and the male says in Hebrew “Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel."

I’m not sure that’s true

For a civil service (which is what we were discussing) it is true. The requirements for Jewish and Society of Friends (aka Quaker) marriages are different.

Marriage has historical patriarchal baggage

Universities didn't used to admit women
Neither did parliament

They also have patriarchal baggage

Civil partnerships have very very recent homophobic baggage

They were created specifically as a 'not marriage' to appease the homophobic Tory bigots who didn't want gay couples to have full marriage equality

So it's not like CPs don't have baggage or negative associations either