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

If civil partnerships are so "pointless", why do a large minority of gay couples still opt for them in place of marriage?

From the Office for National Statistics:

The number of civil partnerships formed increased in 2017
This is the second year that civil partnership formations have increased since the introduction of marriages of same-sex couples was announced in December 2013. There were 908 civil partnerships formed in England and Wales in 2017, a rise of 2.0% compared with 890 in 2016 (Figure 1). However, civil partnership formation numbers in 2017 were around one-sixth of what they were in 2013 before the introduction of marriages of same-sex couples in March 2014.

And some of us work in that area every day and can see the misinformation and misunderstanding on here for what it is. Talk of upgrading, only marrieds argue, CPs will be easier to end blah blah blah.
In this country, there is no difference in the legal status of these two contracts and those shouting shite about it look foolish

This was an endeavour to have what gay people were thrown because it wasn't fair on the privileged woke white straight couple.
And those of you who insist on denigrating those on here who are married (I'm not) as 'naice' in your patronising tones simply inflame the conversation.
The ONLY reason I can see to consider keeping CPs now that marriage is available to all is because of the bigots in NI who still can't conceive of the idea that marriage should be available to same sex couples.

@iwanttomove
Well said!

So what about gay couples who continue to opt for CP rather than marriage? I linked to it up above.

For every 5-6 marriages between same-sex couples, there's 1 new CP. That's in England and Wales (not NI), where both options are available, and the proportion appears to be staying pretty stable year on year.

Is it ok to disenfranchise these people by removing CPs from the statute book because you don't see a point in having them?

Completely agree geeka. Yes, CPs have an unpleasant history and it's important to acknowledge that, but they are still a popular alternative to marriage and there is ongoing demand for them. It's only right that they are extended to included non same sex couples, just as marriage should always have been an option for same sex couples. I have no idea why people are up in arms about MORE options for legal commitment being available. Absolutely no one is trying to take marriage away from anyone

geeka
Source please
I work in this area and your stats do not bear reality.

I'll help you. From the ONS website
Marriages in England and Wales
2015 (latest figures) 239020
2014 247372

CPs in England and Wales
2017 908
2016 890
2015 861
2014 1683

I hope your job doesn't involve teaching maths or accounts

Do you mean to be so rude, iwanttomove?

I linked to the source for CP stats in an earlier post, and that page links to the respective page for marriage stats. Your quoted numbers above are incorrect because they are for total number of marriages in England and Wales, not number of same-sex marriages. The ratio I referenced above was explicitly "For every 5-6 marriages between same-sex couples, there's 1 new CP".

When you look at the correct numbers, my quoted ratio is supported:

2014: Same-sex marriages 4850; Civil partnerships 1683
2015: Same-sex marriages 6493; Civil partnerships 861

When those two years are pooled to smooth out variability - a common approach in calculating ratios of events - you get the following:
2014-15: Same-sex marriages 11343; Civil partnerships 2544
= ratio 5.5:1

Since the ONS has a lag reporting the marriage numbers in England and Wales for 2016 and 2017, we can't make the same direct comparison for those years. However, we do know that the number of CPs per year has stayed stable (indeed, increased slightly) for 2016-17, so it's not a case of CP numbers dwindling away. It's possible that the number of same-sex marriages has continued to increase 2016-17, but we don't have any evidence of that at the current time.

Therefore, on the basis of the most recent figures available, I stand by the assertion that, in England and Wales, for every 5-6 marriages between same-sex couples, there's 1 new civil partnership.

I hope your job doesn't involve teaching maths or accounts

Part of my job (as a STEM academic) involves lecturing university students in statistics and research methods. Attention to detail, such as selecting the correct comparison group, is a critical component of valid statistical design and analysis. I don't insult students who make mistakes, however.

Touché.
I misread your post as per marriage. I apologise.
I will not apologise for anything else I've said regarding the similarities of both legal institutions and the amount of mis-information on this subject on either this thread or similar in the past.
This development runs the risk of people sleepwalking into thinking they have protection from civil law simply because they live together. Marriage is recognised internationally. CPs are not.
I am sick of hearing how woke people who want a CP are because of the baggage of marriage. Most CPs I have ever met refer to themselves as husbands or wives.
Many things in society have paternal baggage. Land-ownership, voting etc. that doesn't mean people's expectations of marriage have not moved on and people have equal relationships nowadays. An abusive partner will be an abusive partner regardless if it is a CP or marriage.
And the dissolution rates will be similar. This is a populist announcement and in practice will be a nightmare

Sure, I've seen quite a lot of misinformation about marriage, CPs, and cohabiting in this and other threads. Nothing new under the sun.

However, I've yet to see a coherent argument for why opening up CPs to heterosexual couples is a bad idea per se. Frankly, I'd like to see CPs opened up way beyond romantic relationships so that siblings, friends, etc. could also enter into binding contracts if they wanted to. I've yet to see a good argument for why any consenting adult should not be allowed to enter into a formal CP with one other consenting adult, regardless of the nature of the relationship, for the purpose of mutual protection in legal and inheritance matters. Like the French PACS, but with bells on.

geeka I just came back this and was trying to remember what I had forgotten... and that was it!

There were 2 sisters in the news not so long ago. They had lived together for decades and wanted to find some easy way to leave each other 'first call' on their home, money, possessions. But the law was stymieing them. Too long, too convoluted, too expensive etc.

A CP between them would have solved their issues.

I had booked a marriage at our local registry office for next month but when I heard the news on the radio yesterday I called the registrar and cancelled. I told her why and asked her to put us on the CP waiting list. She said we would be the first I had a long conversation with her when I booked and she remembered me as one half of "the Inheritance Tax" couple.

I too was expecting Civil Partnerships to go (hence the marriage booking) so I'm really pleased about this. Hope it happens soon because at the moment if either DP or I die we'd have to sell up.

'Frankly, I'd like to see CPs opened up way beyond romantic relationships so that siblings, friends, etc. could also enter into binding contracts if they wanted '

Completely agree. No reason why sexual relationships should be privileged over other relationships.

And you're right - there are no arguments for why opening up CPs is a bad idea. Just a load of denial about patriarchy, and a load of sneering and nastiness, and complete refusal to accept that many people feel uncomfortable with marriage

Do people generally think that this will definitely happen, and in the next couple of years? Are the govt compelled to sort this out, even if an election results in a different party/parties in power?

Assassinated, it's due to be discussed in parliament on 26 October as part of a private member's bill. Probably wise to be cautious though until we have a definite date for legislation to be passed

I am appalled that anyone can see this decision as progressive. LGB people have been treated horrendously in this country. Ever heard of Section 28? Do you have any idea how appalling the behaviour towards gay men was in the early days of AIDS? Do you realise that, in 2018, so-called "liberals" support transgender "lesbians" who call actual lesbians bigoted for refusing to suck dick? Do you know how many people have been disowned by their own family for being LGB?

Then, since late 2014, there has been one - ONE - area in which gay people had slightly more choice than straight people. And I mean AMAZINGLY slight. The difference between CPs and marriage basically amounts to the name! If straight people wanted to get married without any mention of religion, or without the woman changing her name, or without saying certain vows, they could already do that. It was already completely legal.

And straight people actually had the gall to complain that they were being discriminated against. "Same-sex couples have got something that I haven't got. It's not faaair." And after less than FOUR YEARS, it's been announced that the law will be changed so that straight people could have CPs as well. Four years! Four years to change the law so that straight people can also have two names for an almost identical contract. Apparently entitled straight people being precious about the word "marriage" was far more important than gay rights have ever been, and needed to be fixed much faster.

It's disgusting that straight people have the nerve to say "About time!" and, even more infuriatingly, "We finally have equality!" There is nothing positive about this. It's an ugly reminder of heterosexual privilege. It proves how much more seriously your wants are taken when you're part of the majority, even when they're as trivial as fucking semantics.

If anyone is more bothered about the patriarchal root of marriage than the homophobic root of civil partnerships, they need to take a long, hard look at themselves. And if anyone's going to say, "Oh, but civil partnerships have evolved, they're not homophobic anymore" - well, marriage isn't really patriarchal anymore, is it? It's usually far less patriarchal than cohabiting, except for the small minority of women who earn more than their partners. Men have essentially found a way to get all the perks of marriage without having to take on any legal responsibility towards their girlfriend.

If marriage were still so beneficial towards men, I can pretty much guarantee that "common law marriage" (i.e. a couple being de facto married after cohabiting for X number of years) would be legal in the UK. Men would want to force women into marriage by stealth! But they don't. Why do you think that is?

I agree, Lottapianos, I will wait until this is actually passed into law and it is possible to book a CP before I believe it.

I'm struggling to understand this idea that an opposite sex civil partnership vs marriage would somehow be less misogynistic. I don't think the name of the union matters. I just think the dynamics of an opposite sex relationship are always somehow misogynistic because you're still dealing with decades of male and female socialization. But I hope that this lessens as the generations go on.

I don't really feel like I favor civil partnerships over marriage in any kind of ideological way. I think if I got a civil partnership I might still just end up saying I'm married all the time. I don't feel offended by the word wife. I would be offended if someone said I'm "just a wife" though. And the idea of calling someone my wife doesn't bring up feeling of domination and control in me. Still, I can understand straight women feeling hesitant because there is so much misogynistic history to marriage. Just like how I know some gay people want to get married because it feels like a validation of their love. I'm a lesbian...but I'm mostly interested in just finding the right love.

But really, everyone should just do what they feel works and not be asshole partners.

Frankly, I'd like to see CPs opened up way beyond romantic relationships so that siblings, friends, etc. could also enter into binding contracts if they wanted to.
You agree with Boris then? He wrote in 2001: “If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.”
I feel like you're saying that homosexuals had the legal stuff sorted, so the celebration and proud, defiant announcement that this was the person you were going to spend your life with - that's just paperwork so let's let mates do it or siblings do it to save bloody tax??

No reason why sexual relationships should be privileged over other relationships. And you're right - there are no arguments for why opening up CPs is a bad idea.
It's the right and ability to proclaim to the world. It's not just a business undertaking. How can you say there are no arguments against it when you haven't bothered to look? Even earlier in this thread I pointed out I thought it was a shame straight people co-opted civil partnership because they didn't want to reclaim the word wife or marriage.
Why do people celebrate a wedding? In most cases nowadays the couple.have lived together before marriage and quite often already have children together. So why do so many friends and family gather to celebrate? Why do people cry? Why is it such a happy occasion - they were together last week and nobody was cheering them were they?
Because it's a celebration. Love marriage might be comparatively recent but people seem to have taken to it

Isn't this all just a tom-ay-to/tom-ah-to thing now?

"the Inheritance Tax" couple.

I too was expecting Civil Partnerships to go (hence the marriage booking)

So you wanted to save tax. You were happy enough to get married too? Why didn't you just marry?

Why would I prefer a civil partnership? Because I'm out and proud, because a huge part of that day is going to be about the reality of making it in a world set up to belittle your experiences. This very thread - homosexuals getting hitched? Let anyone do it. It's just a business transaction, right?
A lifetime of "you haven't found the right man" "which one is the man" "bitch you act like a man you can take a beating like a man" "why can't you try to be more feminine" and civil partnership was two fingers to it all. It was an official stamp of approval to a homosexual couple, it was vindication. We exist, we are allowed.
Gay marriage, OTOH, pissed off the religious. For no reason other than to adopt the word "marriage". Civil partnership isn't recognised abroad - there were changes in pension rights - loopholes that needed to be filled. But marriage came in and now we could ape the full hetero experience. Cue muted cheers.
I was happy civil partnership was still available, so when it came to it I could celebrate my homosexual partnership, and not have to act like I was straight. Now that's being made available to people who don't agree that being able to marry in just about any location, wearing anything and naming yourself whatever you like afterwards is still too restrictive, and that they'd prefer that they got a new option (that many posters seem to think is marriage-lite).
Not all gay people agree with me on this, some are happy gay marriage is called marriage, some converted their civil partnership straight away too. But my feelings are my feelings on this whatever the personal arguments are for wanting civil partnership for straight people.

Is this not good news? Marriage comes with a lot of historical baggage for women. Everyone will have a choice in future.

The irony is that the thinking behind this, the "they have something I don't have" is the same thinking behind people moaning about why there's a black history month but not a white one. The same as TRAs demanding entry to women's spaces - unisex third spaces won't do, they want what you have.
I want a blue badge for parking but you know what? I'm not bloody disabled. It's not meant for me. I have adequate provision elsewhere.
Invasion of the woke, on all fronts.

Marriage comes with a lot of historical baggage for women
So does childbirth. So does inheritance. Change laws, make provision. Marital rape is illegal, contraception is legal.
It's literally the same argument we make to TRAs - it's your problem, you sort it out. Not my responsibility, I shouldn't have to give up what's mine to make you feel better.