Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original poster

New laws/rights for cohabiting couples

127 replies

jasper · 06/04/2004 22:54

Heard a bit about this in the news yesterday but was not listening properly. Anyone got any info or a link? Thanks

OP posts:

stace · 07/04/2004 17:14

Im not saying its not a good thing but it should also be available to heterosexuals, there are many of us out here who do not want to or believe in the religious aspect or pomp and ceremony of any discription but would like to have the same legal benefits that seem to now be (almost) available to gay couples.

bossykate · 07/04/2004 18:45

i'm with tinker and aloha on this. if you want the legal rights you can have them through marriage without any pomp, circumstance or religious element.

aloha · 07/04/2004 18:53

Absolutely BK. I fail to see what would be different. The plan is to have a ceremony for gay couples that imitates marriage as closely as possible anyway. Believe me, a register office ceremony can be literally five minutes long. There is zero pomp. Though it can be surprisingly moving IME.

lou33 · 07/04/2004 18:59

Agree Aloha. When I was saying my vows, i got so emotional, it was a case of blubbing, and being unable to carry on, or laughing. So I am on camera chortling away, to try and stop me from breaking down in floods!

stace · 07/04/2004 19:03

hear what you say but dont see why there has to be any kind of public declaration.

aloha · 07/04/2004 19:06

Why not? even the gay partnership thing has to be done in front of a registrar and with witnesses.

Tinker · 07/04/2004 19:06

The 'gay marriage' thing will also require a public declaration. 'Public' only needs to mean the couple, 2 witnesses and the registrar.

aloha · 07/04/2004 19:07

Go on! You know you want to

Tinker · 07/04/2004 19:09

If there were no public declaration there could be all sorts of problems for inheritance. Couples believing they were a partnership but one half of the couple already being married - what about his current spouse?

stace · 07/04/2004 19:14

isnt that what the register is about without the public declaration bit?

Tinker · 07/04/2004 19:17

Not sure what you mean. You always need to give notice that you're getting married - the banns.

coppertop · 07/04/2004 19:20

I think you need the public declaration for legal reasons. Historically members of the public have always had the right to object to a marriage if there was some reason why they shouldn't be married, eg bigamy, bride & groom too closely related etc.

stace · 07/04/2004 19:25

ah but this whole thread is not about marraige it is about an alternative to marraige so why does everyone keep referring to it or comparing it to marraige?

misty · 07/04/2004 19:25

Some good points, but personally i think £67 for a registry office wedding is not cheap (I know it is compared to the full works, but it's still £67). Do gay couples have to pay this same amount when they register as well?

Tinker · 07/04/2004 19:33

misty - can't find a link but can't see why they wouldn't pay the sme, it's an admin fee after all.

stace - I'm confused now.

stace · 07/04/2004 19:34

tinker what have i said to confuse you?

Tinker · 07/04/2004 19:36

stace - not sure whether you're referring to gay relationships or co-habiting couples.

aloha · 07/04/2004 19:42

It's compared to marriage because the ceremony is marriage for gay people only with a different name. It's not an alternative in that it gives different right and responsibilities - as far as I can see only the name of it is different and I do think this is to get the law on the statute book without a huge row and controversy. Gay couples complain that they aren't allowed to get married, which is fair enough. But straight couples can get married, and personally I can't see why you don't just get married if you want all the things that flow from it (many of which can easily be replicated by just making your will and putting your money in joint names anyway). I really do not think straight couples have a problem.
I think £67 is cheap. It's a once in a lifetime payment - £33.50 each. You certainly couldn't get a legal document drawn up by a solicitor for £33.50 each. It's two days childminding costs or half a supermarket shop. I cannot see how a partnership agreement could be much cheaper.

stace · 07/04/2004 19:42

well the whole point is that this is a new thing for gay committed couples to have the same rights as married couples, my point is why are heterosexual committed couples not entitled to the same rights now being made available for thier gay friends. The point is that its about the commitment to the relationship not marraige and therefore should have nothing to do with sexuality.

Does that explain it better.

What happens to transgender, intersex, hermaphrodites etc etc are we all not individuals entitled to make committed relationships with the same rights as those that have chosen marraige!!!

aloha · 07/04/2004 19:43

If you can afford a TV, shoes or the odd trip to the pub you can certainly afford to get married!

aloha · 07/04/2004 19:45

Stace, why not get married? I don't understand. It's really easy, cheap and quick and gives you a limited number of extra rights such as a possibly larger settlement if you split from your partner and certain tax breaks in the case of inheritance (though this is not such a big deal unless you leave a pretty large estate)

aloha · 07/04/2004 19:48

It's simple though, if you are a same sex couple (transgender or otherwise) you can now have your own form of marriage called a civil partnership. If you are a straight couple you can get married. There's really nothing different about status of them except one's called marriage and one isn't. I don't see why the name is such a big deal.

Tinker · 07/04/2004 19:51

But heterosexual couples are allowed the same rights now available to gay couples. Gay couples can choose to register their relationship. Hetero couples can choose to get married - effectively the same thing.

Not sure re your point re intersex, transgender, hermaphrodite etc - surely they are registered at birth as a particular sex. Depending upon which sex their partner is will decide which ceremony they want.

I do see there may be a problem with, for instance, life-long best friends who live together who have no option available to them

aloha · 07/04/2004 19:56

Tinker, lifelong best friends can get married or become civil partners, depending on gender. Nobody asks if you have sex! As long as they aren't siblings they can get any small benefits from being married that way. The way people go on you'd think that marriage gave you access to buckets of cash. Sadly it's not so. And I suspect that in cases where women want security but their partners wont marry them, civil partnerships won't help - if these men are deliberately shirking taking on financial responsibilities and don't want to share property then I don't think just not mentioning the M word will change their minds.

fisil · 07/04/2004 19:59

Careful there aloha. In my lifelong partnership we both want, and have security. That is not always the reason for not wanting marriage.

Oops, promised myself I wouldn't enter into this discussion!

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Swipe left for the next trending thread