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

Seriously, this is what you think some people think of when they hear the word marriage?

Yes. It has nothing but negative and traumatic connotations for me. Your inability to understand that not everyone thinks the way you do doesn’t change that.

Be incredulous and scathing if you must, but you just sound like someone who can’t believe anyone might have a differing opinion to your own. Which doesn’t give the best impression of you does it?

'This! Albeit written far more articulately than I managed.'

Same here!

I'm always amused / confused by how badly this issue gets some people's backs up, and how very defensive it makes some married people.

Lottapianos I am too tbh, no idea why it does. I couldn’t give a shit if people decided they wanted to get married, it’s not my business what they do.

But anyone who dares disagree must be stupid/wrong/beneath them. It’s actually quite amusing really.

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!).

But by that logic, hasn't the idea that women are the property of their husbands been righted over the years due to changes in the law, too?

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.

I do think it's a shame that homophobia gets minimised because it only affects a small minority. But thank you for answering the question!

'I couldn’t give a shit if people decided they wanted to get married, it’s not my business what they do. '

Same here! And anyone who wants to get married still has that option open to them, so really no need for all the scorn and eye rolling

But by that logic, hasn't the idea that women are the property of their husbands been righted over the years due to changes in the law, too?

What changes in law though? There haven’t been any benefitting women, and the idea of a wife being the property of a man hasn’t changed either.

I do think it's a shame that homophobia gets minimised because it only affects a small minority. But thank you for answering the question

ODFO where did I minimise homophobia? I said that it hadn’t affected me, and that the CP originally being homophobic has been righted with the introduction of same sex marriage. But nice try, trying to paint me as a homophobe.

Maybe I should decide that actually being a wife, being raped, battered, abused and told I was fuck all because I was his property is far less important than something which doesn’t affect me and is no longer homophobic?

Your agenda is petty and I’m pissed off you’ve tried to label me a bigot when I am not.

The campaign for mixed sex CPs always pissed me off a bit because it all came across a bit "they (gay people) have something we (straight people) don't have". Like they were hard done by, without any consideration for the context of their introduction.

That's said, it matters not a jot to me whether mixed sex couples use them or not. They're clearly marriage with a different name. If the name given to their partnership matters to people then that has no effect on me but the idea that calling it a CP rather than marriage will anyway effect he quality of said partnership is a bit nuts IMO.

What changes in law though? There haven’t been any benefitting women, and the idea of a wife being the property of a man hasn’t changed either.

There have been changes in the law - rape within marriage is illegal, domestic violence is taken much more seriously.

I've never met anyone in my life who believes that a wife is the property of a man. I'm sure people who believe that do exist, but people like that will just view a female civil partner in exactly the same way.

ODFO where did I minimise homophobia? I said that it hadn’t affected me, and that the CP originally being homophobic has been righted with the introduction of same sex marriage. But nice try, trying to paint me as a homophobe.

Maybe I should decide that actually being a wife, being raped, battered, abused and told I was fuck all because I was his property is far less important than something which doesn’t affect me and is no longer homophobic?

It's disgusting that those things happened to you, but if CP is no longer homophobic then I would argue that marriage is no longer necessarily misogynistic. In fact, marriage (and now, CPs) is one of the few ways that "women's work" can be financially recognised, especially that of SAHMs. Most women end up taking a career hit when they have children.

I don't think making CPs available to straight couples is a bad thing, but I don't think it'll do much to help women, except for the small minority who chose not to get married on an ideological basis. I think the fact that so many people have children before marriage nowadays has primarily benefited MEN, not women. If marriage were still so patriarchal, men would be desperate to do it! As things stand, a man can quite easily find a woman who is willing to have children with him, provide free childcare and housework, yet not have any access to his assets, pension, etc. if he decides to leave her for someone else.

I don't think it'll do much to help women, except for the small minority who chose not to get married on an ideological basis.

Right, so you’ve spent all that time picking apart my opinions for what reason?

Because I don’t think like you and you don’t like it.

That’s not my problem.

And rape within marriage being illegal isn’t something we should be fucking grateful for!

Don’t kid yourself that DV is taken anywhere near as seriously as it should be. Nowhere near. If it was, 2 women a week wouldn’t end up dead at the hands of a man they are either with or used to be with.

Neither legislation changes have benefitted women, apart from being allowed to bring charges against a rapist (or being allowed to report him at least, charges aren’t likely are they?)

I’ve not criticised anyone who chooses to get married, but it would appear the opposite courtesy isn’t being extended.

Says more about them than it does about me.

'I’ve not criticised anyone who chooses to get married, but it would appear the opposite courtesy isn’t being extended. '

It's always the same on threads about CP. It gets personal and nasty and people get defensive and there's no need for it

Vast numbers of women CHANGE THEIR NAME when they get married. Their name. A central part of their identity by anyone's standard. And virtually no men do the same. Yes, I know you don't 'have to' do it any more, but it's still very much expected - ask any of the women on here who get cards addressed to 'Mrs His Name' forever more, even when they have kept their own name. That's pretty damn patriarchal, for those at you who scoff at any suggestion that marriage has sexist baggage attached

My friends who had organised a CP (which was then changed to a marriage because thankfully the law changed just in time!) came up with a lovely idea for name changes. They took the meaning of both their surnames and combined them to make a totally new one. Totally off point but just a really nice idea.

I HATED not having my own name, I resented it. Even if DP and I ever did marry (we won’t) I wouldn’t change my name again.

I get why that name change idea might appeal Hen. I'm a grumpy cow when it comes to name changing in marriage though and I don't see why everyone can't just keep their own 😁. It's such a huge inequality in expectations. When men start changing their names in any kind of numbers, there might be some weight to the 'its just a choice' argument

Where did I criticise you for choosing not to get married? I don't think there's anything wrong whatsoever with not getting married! I said that the homophobic history of CPs is just as relevant as the patriarchal history of marriage, which I believe it is.

I mentioned marital rape and domestic violence because you said there haven't been changes in the law, not because marital rape being made illegal is something to be grateful for!

Of course domestic violence isn't taken as seriously as it should be, but homophobia still isn't taken seriously either. Gay people are still frequently treated as lesser. I can't understand objecting to the patriarchal history of marriage but not the homophobic history of CPs.

Unmarried women are still subject to patriarchy. Unmarried women are still subject to DV, unmarried women still take a career hit after having children. Unfortunately, unmarried women are (statistically) likelier than married ones to lose out financially after splitting with the father of their children.

The current set-up - men having families while refusing to enter a contract that will protect their partners in the event of a split - actually suits many men very, very well.

Absolutely agree with that Lotta

My friends are both women and they wanted to get away from the traditional name change ideas, so I thought that was a good compromise (it helps that both their surnames are colours and the one they chose is a mix of the two).

I love DP, and we are fully committed to each other, but I don’t need or want his name and he doesn’t need or want mine. You also make a very fair point about women being addressed as Mrs even if they’re not a Mrs and don’t take his name!

Excellent job guys! Finally some good news. :)

Valanice1989 fair points, I agree that homophobia isn’t taken as seriously as it should be. Absolutely agree.

I’m in an (apparently) unusual position in that all the assets are mine legally (house, cars, lump sum) and I’d just want to make sure that if I die first, DP doesn’t get fucked over. That would be my main reason for it, along with next of kin privileges and DS1 being able to stay with DP if I died before he was 18.

Tbh, if I can do all that with some kind of will/legal document without having to do any CP then I would, but the two solicitors I’ve asked said it wasn’t binding.

Just to be clear, Hen, I don't think there's anything wrong with straight couples having a CP, even though they have homophobic origins. I just think that if one agrees that the homophobic history of CPs is a thing of the past now that same-sex marriage is legal, the same logic should extend to the misogynistic origins of mixed-sex marriage. I don't agree that marriage is necessarily patriarchal nowadays - in fact, I would argue that it's generally less patriarchal than cohabiting. Obviously there are exceptions (like your own circumstances, where all the assets are in your name) but depressingly, I think the growing trend toward having children before marriage has actually harmed women as a class. Men still screw over women all the time - it's just that those women are now less likely to have legal recourse when it happens.

Aye I agree with that too. The entire system is set up and loaded against women. That’s the crux of it isn’t it?

I know my (our) situation is unusual, and I wish there was a better way for women to have legal and financial protection (because career breaks to have children tend to dent our earning potential) without having to get married.

If it’s a choice that’s fine, but having to do it isn’t a choice if that makes sense.

Be incredulous and scathing if you must, but you just sound like someone who can’t believe anyone might have a differing opinion to your own. Which doesn’t give the best impression of you does it?

You sound pretty angry Hen. but it's still a bizarre comment to make. Cohabiting families are not all honey and puppy dogs. CPs won't be any different day to day than a marriage. I defy you to show me a dictionary anywhere that says the definition of wife is 'property of a man'.
You are indeed talking angry shite. There is no logical reason to extend CPs to straight couples other than to stoke their privileged wokeness.

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 disagree that civil partnership was homophobic. I think it was groundbreaking and I remember the vote as if it was yesterday.
Not all us gays wanted or agreed with gay marriage, you know.
I would have a civil partnership instead of a marriage to this day.

I have to add, I'm another of those who don't understand why straight people wanted civil partnerships, and from a purely selfish point of view I'm a little disappointed, us homos don't have our own thing any more. I thought that marriage was for straight people and civil partnership for us, but the law has been changed twice now so I guess we have to go back to aping heterosexuals.

I think the fact that so many people have children before marriage nowadays has primarily benefited MEN, not women. If marriage were still so patriarchal, men would be desperate to do it! As things stand, a man can quite easily find a woman who is willing to have children with him, provide free childcare and housework, yet not have any access to his assets, pension, etc. if he decides to leave her for someone else.
This is very true. Yet some women still believe in the concept of common law marriage, which doesn't exist!
I wonder if the pressure to spend spend spend on the "big day" puts people off. And civil partnership for straight people is a get-out for that.

There is no logical reason to extend CPs to straight couples other than to stoke their privileged wokeness.
I do agree with that, it's a bit inflammatory but I can't understand this personally either. A marriage costs less than £200 for a room, a registrar and a short ceremony. You can get married in Vegas, in scuba gear at the bottom of a swimming pool, skydiving, wherever. You don't have to take your husband's name. I guess one could still see it as patriarchal but surely the word "wife" can be reclaimed as any other words could?
My point of view and feelings on this are irrelevant as the Tories have forced through gay marriage and now this anyway.

I am pleased to hear this news, I could never understand why civil partnerships were only for homosexual couples.
The idea of bringing in brand new legislation which was discriminatory from the start!? How did that even happen? confused

I never wanted to be a wife. Never wanted either a big wedding or to have to explain to relatives why we got married without inviting them. Never wanted said relatives calling me Mrs X even though I've told them several times I never changed my name from Ms Y (or Dr Y, if they insist on fucking titles). Never wanted to have to argue with my bank that ticking "married" in the online form does not mean I have a previous surname that I'm not disclosing.

Of course marriage enshrines misogyny. Society has always been misogynistic so it's no surprise that marriage, as a social tradition, is absolutely embedded in misogynistic practices and expectations.

Some people don't mind that or don't notice it; fine for them. But for those of us who can't unsee it, yet still want the legal and tax protections of a formal contract, a CP offers an alternative route. That's why some of us are pleased it might become an option for straight couples as well as gay. Why is that so incomprehensible / infuriating to some people?

'Some people don't mind that or don't notice it; '

Or are in denial about it!