Civil partnerships to be opened to opposite sex couples

[Lottapianos]

Well I was NOT expecting to hear any good news from the Tory party conference but here we are. I know lots of us on here have been waiting and hoping for this and it's been announced today. No idea yet when it will become legally possible but it's happening.

I think this is really good news and DP and I will most definitely be taking full advantage at the earliest opportunity

I am a bit surprised. After the Supreme court ruling, I thought that the govt would seek to abolish CP as the rate of take up has plummeted since same sex marriage was introduced. However I do remember the woman in the Supreme court case said on the day of the judgement that the LBGT community had been assured by the govt. that CP would not be abolished., So here we are. I think it will be interesting to see how popular it actually turns out to be. But at least it might be an alternative to Bridezilla phenomenon.

Also we like our relationship as it is and somehow marriage feels like it would bring a whole emotional statement with it

Yeah. 'Wife' has always left a nasty taste in my mouth. There are still social expectations put on wives, I think, to put HisCareer first and play 'housewife' and all that. Fuck that. My career and income is more important to me than his and I've always made this abundantly clear. As well as simply thinking marriage is bullshirt and weddings nauseating I didn't and don't want the added fight of explaining why I am not a 'good wife'. Not being conventional and 'naice' from the get-go leaves more wriggle room for not having to conform if that maks sense.

YetAnotherSpartacus, I don't disagree at all about the 'love marriage' thing. I used the phrase 'romantic partnership' to distinguish between that and a brother/sister partnership, or one between two friends who have no sexual or romantic motive or connection.

On another note, does spousal privilege exist for Civil Partnerships? I know that my friend is a Doctor married to a Pharmacist, so if either of them confessed to the other that they'd fatally cocked up their calculations, the other one couldn't be compelled to testify. Just wondering if that's still one (rather obscure) area where marriage is different to CP. Any legal beagles out there can clear this one up? May post on another section...

I could never be a 'wife', because of the historical baggage. DP and I will be signing up asap to be officially 'partners'.

I am a bit surprised. After the Supreme court ruling, I thought that the govt would seek to abolish CP as the rate of take up has plummeted since same sex marriage was introduced.

I suspect they did it this way round for pragmatic reasons. The complexity of the legislation needed to abolish CP would be greater. It is simpler for them to do it this way round.

One other difference is that marriage certificates have space to record only the father of each person getting married. Mothers are completely ignored. Since marriage certs are historical documents as well as legal ones, they represent an ongoing, concrete example of women being written out of history.

Civil partnership certificates record details of both mothers and fathers; far more equitable. It's one of the reasons I would have preferred a civil partnership to marriage, had it been available at the time. I can't overlook the patriarchal baggage of marriage, but civil partnership is far more neutral as contracts go.

There's a private member's bill in progress to include mothers' details on marriage certs, so it may be changed eventually. Not yet, though.

Ah, English law. The perfect example of the cobbled-together bodge job.

So, they're trying to change it so that eventually, marriage will reflect Civil Partnership by having both parents recorded fairly. And a number are at pains to point out that the distinctions between the two things are negligible, and while there are still issues with certain specifics, those can be ironed out with ongoing legislative action or policy changes.

So, we'll end up with two identical parallel systems for registering stable monogamous romantic partnerships that are called different things. Delightfully bonkers.

So, we'll end up with two identical parallel systems for registering stable monogamous romantic partnerships that are called different things

One implies and indeed in the language used implies a woman is the property of her husband. The other doesn’t.

That’s the key for me.

YeTalkShiteHen, yes, I understand the various objections to marriage as a historical institution. No issue with that at all. I just think it's a bizarre quirk of British law that could see the way it's resolved being by having two identical systems, both with fairly dubious backgrounds, instead of one straightforward thing.

I agree with that to be fair, I think overhauling the whole thing and making it fair and not misogynistic/homophobic would be the ideal solution.

You know you can't get a CP dissolved on grounds of adultery don't you?

joystir59 but you can under the terms of being “sexually unfaithful” classed as unreasonable behaviour.

It’s just a different name.

Joy You are wrong, see upthread for the link to the government's own page on Causes in a Civil Partnership.

Your post repeats an lie, and urban myth, a falsehood! Honest!

Question for those who say they would choose a CP over marriage because the latter has a patriarchal history: surely CPs are just as problematic, given their homophobic history? They were brought in as an attempt to shut up gay people and stop them from fighting for marriage. I'm not trying to goad; I honestly can't understand why homophobia is any better than sexism.

I’ll take that, it was homophobic in origin, absolutely which isn’t good.

However, that wrong has been righted with the introduction of same sex marriage (thank fuck!).

For me it’s as simple as I’m not gay, so homophobia (abhorrent as it is) has never played a negative and hurtful role in my own life. Misogyny and the connotations of the word wife, have.

There isn't much difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage. CP was brought in to get round the opposition to gay marriage, but the law was entirely modelled on marriage.

Now that both marriage and CP will be open to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the biggest difference will be the name. The other differences are mostly technical.

It was a sop to the religious right by Tony Blair, because they couldn't stomach the thought of the gays getting 'married'.

As one of the gays who was thrown this crumb, I've never, ever understood why straights can't see that it's just civil marriage with a different name.

What's the difference? (religious marriages aside)

As one of the gays who was thrown this crumb, I've never, ever understood why straights can't see that it's just civil marriage with a different name.

Whilst I fully understand your anger at what CP originally was, you don’t seem to understand that it’s not the same at all. Because if it was, you wouldn’t describe it as a crumb would you?

Misogyny is the root of marriage, even the word wife means “property of her husband”.

Just as you have every right to feel how you feel about your own circumstances, that doesn’t mean you get to tell other women.

I think it was really unfortunate that, throughout all the debates on CP and SSM, that marriage as an institution was unquestioningly accepted as "a good thing". An opportunity was missed, over and again, to have a considered discussion about the history and present day purposes of marriage.

The Law Society in Canada produced a document, a number of years ago now, entitled "Beyond Conjugality" which takes a critical look at marriage and proposes far-reaching changes. It wasn't implemented, but it's an interesting and thought-provoking read.

I don't want to be a wife or be married. The idea repulses me TBH. But I would like mine and dp's long-standing partnership legally recognised. Without heterosexual civil partnerships we have very limited rights, we are getting older and legal recognition of our commitment to each other would make life easier

This! Albeit written far more articulately than I managed.

*Hoorah!

For people asking why someone might want this - marriage is not always a happy thing. For some, even the word marriage suggests arguments, abuse, control etc. Plenty of people who have bad experiences - or see them in their lives - swear they will never marry. Now there is to be another option, while still protecting loved ones*

I don't think I have ever read anything so ridiculous in all my time on mn. Seriously, this is what you think some people think of when they hear the word marriage? Let me tell you, cp dissolution rates will be identical to marriage dissolution rates. CPs are not marriage lite ffs. They are pretty much identical in all but name.