Congratulations, Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan

[hipsterfun]

Who won the fight for mixed-sex civil partnerships

Congratulations and may you continue to be as happy as ever

(And thank you )

I could never see why a civil partnership was looked down upon by some in the first place.

The Powers-That-Be did not want this. They hoped that equal marriage would be followed by a winding up of civil partnerships.

Instead, we can now confidently look forward to the end of civil marriage. "Holy" matrimony will become a purely personal thing not recognised by the law of the land in any way.

Yeeaaay!

Oh lovely! They have been fighting for this for years. I am so happy for them and grateful to them for taking this all the way. Marriage comes with a lot of baggage for lots of us (especially women) and now everyone has the option of a civil partnership if they want one. Lovely news for the new year.

They have been fighting for this for years.

Awesome civil partner-zillas

So how does this differ (apart from in name) with getting married at a registry office with no religious element? Is it a case of similar ceremonial/procedure but just a different piece of paper and not being able to call yourselves husband and wife? Do the ‘Mr and Mrs’ labels not apply? I’ve been with my partner for over 20 years with 2 children so am looking to do something. Also am in Scotland so are things different up here?

Decade, there is a gov page that details the differences - I'll try and find it ....

England/Wales here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/marriage-and-civil-partnership-in-england-and-wales

Scotland here: www2.gov.scot/Topics/Justice/law/17867/18313/faq-general#a4

This is great news. Well done to the couple, and thank you! Mebbe I'll do a bit of proposing tonight.

Congratulations to Rebecca and Charles and all others getting a civil partnership, an option we would have chosen if we hadn't already got married.

Yes. Civil partnership is definitely the option for me, now. I'm pleased to see mixed-sex couples finally being able to opt out of marriage if they desire.

Marriage is great (I love a good wedding and must confess on a few times have shed a tear) but I have never wanted to be a wife and I don't want a husband. I don't suppose the Mr and Mrs labels apply which would be another bonus. I also like that both parents names are on the certificate, at the moment with marriage it's only the father's which says it all really.

So, apart from the adultery thing, you get to not do the "I call upon blah blah blah" bit that always seemed embarrassingly pointless. I think I would have gone for civil partnership if it had been around because I thought it was enough to just sign.

(I am intrigued that a same sex marriage can be annulled "If the respondent was pregnant at the time of the marriage by some person other than the petitioner")

There have been a lot of threads on MN saying what's the point, it's stupid blah blah

People seem really genuinely pissed off that get people can do this now and I don't understand why. It seems totally innocuous and doesn't impact on them in any way.

I've read loads of posts and I can't get to grips with what the hostility is about underneath the oh it's a marriage by another name stuff. Emotionally people seem to have reacted strongly against this. Why? Anyone got any ideas?

Het not get

The Mr and Mrs labels apply to CPs if the couple want them to hulo and decade, which is identical to the situation for married and for cohabiting couples.

Emotionally people seem to have reacted strongly against this. Why? Anyone got any ideas?

Presumably some people who think the world revolves around them will feel that others’ rejection of marriage is a judgment on their choices.

What’s the main differences with a civil partnership and marriage?

I'm planning on getting civil partnered this year! For me it's getting the benefits of marriage without the baggage of the institution which until relatively recently deemed me a man's property.

But what are the differences? Is it exactly the same but with a different name?

I don’t know if it is a good thing in practice really.

I'll be honest, my response was a bit meh. I've understood the feminist objections to specifically religious marriage, and all the vows to obey, etc. but I didn't really get why a non religious wedding, which you can have nearly anywhere, say pretty much whatever the heck you like as a vow and enter into as long as you weren't married to anyone else or related to your partner was such an enormous no no.

The struggle for civil partnerships and equal marriage in the first place, for Lesbian and Gay couples, I totally understood. But I don't as yet understand why it's such a big thing for people who already had the option to formally commit and receive legal rights via that commitment.

HSAT, I think it is entirely right that there should be parity between the choices available to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, so I'm not angry or offended about this, which would be an odd response. I'm just a little bemused by it being a huge deal, though I accept it clearly is for some people.

But I'll be delighted when the law is changed to allow lesbian and gay people to marry in the national church and I know that's quite an opaque bit of reasoning for some people, so I'm happy to explore this further.

I don't know if this is the right place to ask but hopefully someone will know because I can't find the info anywhere else. If I and my boyfriend enter into a civil partnership, are we then each other's next of kin? So if he died (or I died, just reverse the questions) would everything he owns be legally mine, if he was on life-support would I be allowed to make the decisions needed to keep him alive or not, would I be able to make the decision to donate his organs or not and things like that?

If you're in the UK, legal next of kin in the way you mean it isn't a thing here. There isn't an automatic right to make medical decisions, consulting relatives is part of a larger process. In respect of wills and assets, CPs will be treated the same as married couples. So the answer depends did the dead person have a will, if so who was the beneficiary, size of the estate, various factors. Do you and your boyfriend have joint assets, children? Ever seen a solicitor?

Thanks @boxedwine we do have wills and have documents stating we want to be each other's next if kin/want each other to be able to make medical decisions etc. Which I'm sure will be fine I just want everything to be watertight.

Both of our mother/father/siblings are dead or NC and we have no children. So we only really have extended family, friends and each other.

The arguments about practical advantages and disadvantages of marriage v cohabiting pretty much all apply to CP in the same way, as far as I can see. I mean things like wills, inheritance tax, splitting assets at relationship end, challenging wills, intestacy rules etc.

The differences between marriage and CP are quite minor: different histories and problematic connotations, mother's name can go on CP certificate, adultery isn't a named reason for dissolution of CP like it is for divorce- you'd petition for unreasonable behaviour instead.

One thing that is worth mentioning is lack of international recognition of British CP. I'd suggest anyone having a CP and travelling checks whether a partner without a marriage contract will be treated in the same way as a spouse if something befalls one of you: medical arrangements, repatriation, that type of thing, and whether having a CP will mean you count as a spouse. The UK is pretty good about recognising non-spouses for practical stuff like that, not the case everywhere.

I have read many a times on MN and been astounded that so many women don’t seem to understand the legal implications of marriage, co-habiting couples, religious vs civil ceremonies, that you could get married simply at the registrar office, and that ‘common law wife’ is not a legal thing. Many people still say it is ‘just a piece of paper’.

But it is basically ‘marriage’ at the legal core, whatever else you decide to do religious/ non religious, mr and Mrs, change of name, big wedding with meringue/ no meringue, all these layers you could pretty much add on as you want. The historical baggage , imho, is what you decide to make it and I do understand this from a feminist POV.

However, add to this ‘civil partnership’ , I see it as over complicating things and women will end up being disadvantaged, And some may well end up not having any legal protection at all which they otherwise would have.

We are planning to have a CP this year.
I signed the petition and am grateful that Rebecca and Charles worked so hard to campaign for this.

It’s really difficult to avoid the whole performance of a wedding, especially if you are “the bride”. And certain family members may never forgive you if you did it on a Wednesday morning with just a couple of friends for witnesses.

I do think it’s very much a feminist issue. I don’t dislike weddings but they are not for me, and no one should feel like they have to have one to have their relationship recognised legally and to protect themselves, their partner and their children.

But that's what I don't understand. Presumably you have to choose to have a CP to have all that legal recognition and protection? You still don't get that protection if you do neither.

Some relatives do no doubt get arsey and controlling about weddings, but why would they be any less disappointed if you just go and get a civil partnership, instead of a perfunctory registry office wedding?