Supreme Court rules that mixed sex couples can have civil partnerships

[Dinosaurchicken]

Not 100% this is the right board but I know many feminists have objections to some aspect of marriage so I thought I would share.

here

Brilliant news. I just hope the government does the right thing and opens up CPs to everyone rather than doing something daft like scrapping the whole thing

I have a suspicion they’d sooner scrap CPs altogether than have CPs available for all.

• digression - pleased to see BBC using ‘mixed sex’ and ‘same sex’.

I suspect I’m not the only one who now scans news articles noting when ‘gender’ is incorrectly used instead!

Congratulations to Rebecca & Charles. I’m surprised they had to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, as the law on CP was obviously and blatantly discriminatory.

I suspect the government will respond by abolishing CP, but who knows with this shambolic lot?

'I’m surprised they had to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, as the law on CP was obviously and blatantly discriminatory.'

Same here. If they do scrap CP, where does that leave the thousands of same sex couples who currently have a CP? I would be fuming if I was in that situation

I hope not. I’d prefer a CP.

This ruling is overdue and I'm glad the couple involved have fought it all the way through to this point. The problem is that the government can just ignore this ruling if it chooses to, and there's nothing that can be done about that. I hope that they see sense and change the law to allow opposite sex couples to have CP rather than scrap them altogether.

I don't understand why the government is against it?

This is good news. Hopefully it will be available to everyone in the near future. Will be watching what happens with interest. Well done to that couple.

The thread title is a little bit misleading, it's always been accepted that the Govt could open up CPs to opposite sex couples if they wanted to do so. Also the Supreme Court hasn't told the Govt that they must introduce mixed sex CP, just that they can't carry on with the situation where there are two choices for same sex couple and only one for mixed. The Govt had tried to argue that it was justifiable to wait and see what happened to CPs after same sex marriage was introduced and only then to decide what to do with them. The Supreme Court has said that that policy couldn't justify the discrimination against mixed sex couples and there should have been equality from the start, they just haven't told the Govt what form that equality should take. The judgment is here www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0060-judgment.pdf if anyone wants to read it.

As someone who used to have a CP but then converted it to a marriage, I will admit I do feel a bit annoyed - historically it was JUST for homosexuals because gov would not give us marriage and now straight folks want to muscle in too. I think I would be happier with a third option, a non-marriage possibility for all, but leave CP alone as a relic of gay history. An archaelogical relic as it were. If straight folks were so anti marriage why hijack what gay folks got given as a consolation prize? Who'd a thunk I'd get so wibbly about something I'd traded in anyway?
It feels quite important to me as someone who basically we had to write our own ceremony because small-town register office didn't have any suggestions (and asked to keep ours). We didn't even get the correct initial appointment because they didn't find the forms. They had to partition off a bit of the notice board just for us. So legislate for a new civil option, don't nick our gay history, let gay CPs fade away if they want to.

Good news. We wanted to hold out for a civil partnership but the arrival of children meant we had to marry instead.

I agree with SomeDyke a new civil option for everyone would be best

I think some couples, understandably, want to benefit from the bureaucratic benefits that come from a legal recognition of a relationship.
I know many couples who have been in a relationship for 20+ years, with adult children etc. who will have to pay inheritance tax and the likes as a result of not being married. The have their own reasons for not wanting to be married but to want the benefits conferred as a result of a marriage or civil partnership.

SomeDyke

Nobody is trying to ‘nick your gay history’.

We just want equality in law for everyone, whether they are gay, bi or straight .

I'd always said i would have preferred a CP, as the historical connotations of marriage were a tad dodgy, til I read someone recently pointing out that the historical connotations of the CP weren't exactly great either - obviously they don't have the long misogyny history that marriage has, but the idea that gay and lesbian people needed their own "non-marriage" was a tad homophobic really.

So now I agree that a third - civil - option should be the answer, with its own name. Trouble is, "civil partnership" is the best name I can think of to accurately describe that... will have to think of something else...

In my ideal world - for my circumstances - I'd backdate any civil ceremonies (as mine was) to be rebranded as "not marriage". I realise that ain't happening though

Oo maybe "legal partnership". Or does that sound too businessy...?

'Oo maybe "legal partnership". '

Sounds ok to me. Or 'civil union'

I agree that a new civil option would be a good plan, but where would that leave same sex couples who have a CP?

I'd suggest three options, change to marriage, change to new non-marriage union (NMU), or keep their CP - but with any new CPs changed to the NMU.

I can see why same sex couples might feel encroached upon by the heterosexuals muscling in, but at the same time it can't realistically be left as it is. I quite like the idea of having a new non marriage option available to all and keeping the CP as a relic of gay rights history

I have just read that adultery cannot be used as a reason to dissolve a civil partnership, unlike marriage where adultery can be used as a reason for divorce. I wonder where that leaves people whose civil partners have been unfaithful and who wish to dissolve the partnership. Are they expected to stick it out, or remain legally partnered with someone who they are no longer in a relationship with, and therefore unable to remarry (re-partner?) in the future?

Superbird, I remember reading that when it came out as it was hard to define it. In m/f marriage there is lots of case law on it - it is a penis in the vagina which is erect but no need to ejaculate. Anal and oral sex don't count nor do steamy kisses and love letters. (I enjoyed that bit of the law course - all those salacious cases - who ever said law was boring?)

if I were the state I would now either allow CP for all or abolish CP for all. If people don't want to be married they can just live together without getting massive IHT tax breaks surely like we single people

At this point, isn't this all just terminology we're talking about here? I don't s why we should have 3 or more different official terms for the same thing.

Wow, so a same sex couple have basically no legal protection if one partner cheats? Because, legally, it's not adultery? That's fairly messed up...

It’s a great idea.

I’ll admit I’m a bit baffled by the notion that this steals gay history. But I’m straight so maybe I should try a bit harder to understand.