Civil partnership, Supreme Court decision

[Singlenotsingle]

Decision just announced that a heterosexual couple can have a civil partnership. Bit ironic really- gay couples wanted marriage, and now hetero couples want civil partnership. Surely there's no need for CP if you can get all the protection s through Wills, house in joint names etc and stay single?

Essentially registering your civil partnership is just the same as a marriage

Same difference then?

"How do you prove you were co-habiting not just housemates? Or do housemates eventually become married in common law?"

This is how it works in some countries (and it sounds like a bad idea to me). But civil partnerships, as this thread shows, are almost identical to marriage and require both parties to sign a legal document.

@TakeMeToKernow thanks I got flamed on another thread about the same thing!

Essentially registering your civil partnership is just the same as a marriage, it's just that you don't have to speak the legally required words, just acknowledge on paper

And you’re not married, not husband and wife and not “joined in matrimony”, it’s not exactly the same. For some of us, the wording matters!

Fine, but I was responding to the point that it's just signing a bit of paper. That might give the impression that you could just download the relevant form and each sign it, but there is much more formality attached to it than this.

I also find it difficult to understand the point about marriage being religious and CP not. We've had civil marriage in this country since 1837 and you can now have CP on a religious premises. The majority of people have non-religious marriages. Sure the law still has it's roots in the old canon law of marriage but (a) a large amount of that has now been stripped out/become irrelevant, and (b) given that civil partnerships were written to mirror marriage as closely as possible they are also based on the same roots.

I'm not against civil partnerships for all but there does seem to be an impression that they are more different from marriage than is really the case.

Excellent. DP and I after 20 years will be going for this

I'm not against civil partnerships for all but there does seem to be an impression that they are more different from marriage than is really the case

Which isn’t true. Because you’re not married, not husband and wife and not legally “joined in matrimony”. Just because you don’t or won’t understand that doesn’t change it.

I’m not an idiot I’m well aware of civil marriage. It doesn’t change the root of the institution.

Great posts Sodding. Couldn't be any clearer!

@Lottapianos thank you. I was starting to wonder. I have no issue with people who choose to get married, that’s up to them. It’s the badgering that everyone should feel the same, the misinformation about CP in comparison, and the denial of the roots of marriage which irritate me.

'It’s the badgering that everyone should feel the same, the misinformation about CP in comparison, and the denial of the roots of marriage which irritate me.'

Ditto. The level of nastiness and defensiveness has been really quite something

Hasn’t it just!

Just because you don’t or won’t understand that doesn’t change it. In what way don't I understand it? There are many people (I'm not saying you) who seem to be under the impression that it is marriage-lite and comes with a different set of rights and obligations but that is not the case. It's really not surprising that people think that because if starting from scratch there is no way that anyone would design a law so that there were two essentially identical institutions, with technical differences but different names. It would make far more sense to have two different forms of commitment but that is not what this offers.

Terms like 'joined in matrimony' carry a lot of symbolism but you don't have to use them in your vows and they don't really have any meaning beyond that. Legally you will be just as clearly 'joined in partnership' as 'joined in marriage'

differences

It is different, whatever you think. And the terminology matters to some people. Just because it’s not the same as your opinion or that you can’t/won’t understand actual facts, doesn’t give you the right to judge or sneer.

Have a nice day.

And joined in matrimony is your legal status after being married. Whether you change the words, ceremony (not needed in CP btw), or forgo any of the other trappings of a wedding.

I’ve been a wife, I have no desire to ever be one again.

Just because it’s not the same as your opinion or that you can’t/won’t understand actual facts, doesn’t give you the right to judge or sneer.
Can you point to something I haven't understood or where I have judged or sneered? I'm really shocked that I've given that impression.

Because you keep going on that it’s the same and a CP is essentially pointless when you’ve utterly missed the point.

Oh and it’s not what you insist it is.

Oh and it’s not what you insist it is. sorry I don't understand what you mean by that. I'm also not sure where I've said that they are pointless. Are you confusing me with another poster? I'm not against civil partnership at all. If I were creating the law from scratch then the only institution that would have legal status would be a form of civil union (not nec current civil partnerships) and I would leave marriage as a religious institution without legal consequences. Of course one of the major problems with that would be international recognition and for that reason if I were choosing under the current law I would choose marriage.

That independent article is very poor, it doesn't seem to understand civil marriage at all.

You say it’s the same effectively when it isn’t, cannot comprehend why the terminology of marriage (even if you choose to ignore it which is slightly ridiculous if you’re choosing to get married) might have negative connotations and imply repeatedly that in law there is effectively different. Which just isn’t true.

Anyway. I’m done, clearly you won’t change your mind, and that’s fine. But I’m getting pissed off with the misinformation and the outright shite being posted on MN today so I’m disengaging for my own sanity.

I am delighted with the ruling and completely agree with you Sodding - I am actually hesitant saying that because of the backlash/ name calling.

I think your projecting a lot onto my posts Sodding because I can't see what your saying in what I think or what I've written. Disengaging for a bit sounds a good idea.

You're

We are really happy about this. I've been with partner 14 years. I have some problems with the tradition of marriage. I by no mean feel should not be married it just isn't for me. As it have historical patriarchal connotations for me. I'd love to be in the first rush of people to get this if the law changes for heterosexual couples. We've been waiting for it.

I’m still baffled how some people can be so vehemently against something that would please a lot of other people, when it would do them no harm whatsoever

Surely there's no need for CP if you can get all the protection s through Wills, house in joint names etc and stay single?

You can't. There are certain legal ties* that you can only make through marriage or civil partnership and you can only undo through divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership.

*I said making legal ties rather than getting legal protection because some people give up a certain amount of legal protection when they get married, rather than gaining it, for example if they already own property in their sole name or generally have more assets than the other person.

As for the Supreme Court decision, I welcome it. If the law changes to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples then there will be fewer people exposing themselves to financial and legal risk simply because the traditional notion of marriage goes against their principles.

However, for people who are in long-term co-habiting relationships with someone better off than them who doesn't want to get married because they "don't need a piece of paper to prove their love" (I'm looking at you, unmarried SAHMs), they may well find that their partner still wants to have the option to walk away without giving you a share of his assets or compensating you for your non-financial contribution to the relationship will still say they "don't need a piece of paper to prove their love", and so won't be interested in forming a civil partnership either.