Heterosexual civil partnerships

[Rhiannon]

I genuinely don't understand this ruling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146

Obviously civil partnerships were originally a fudge, but now they exist surely the choice to choose this or marriage has to be opened up to straight couples? Otherwise we don't have equality.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

The ruling is that the law is unfair but in this case the Judges cannot change it, it must be changed by Parliament.

[Rhiannon]

The ruling is that the law is unfair but in this case the Judges cannot change it, it must be changed by Parliament.

When I published the link the ruling hadn't been explained - it was breaking news. I'm surprised the judges think the government deserves 'more time' - it seems that there was potential to rule against the government here.

[Rhiannon]

I had no idea civil partnerships only applied to gay couples, surely heterosexuals should have that option too.

I'd never remarry but I can see the appeal of having protection in law. I hope the law is changed.

[Enki]

This is one of the few occasions that I actually agreed with Vlad, although in his case he seemed to use the argument simply as a weapon to attack his 'antitheist' creations. In my opinion, not to allow heterosexual couples to have civil partnerships is discriminatory and the law should be changed.

[Udayana]

Is there, in practice rather than legally, any difference between a civil partnership and marriage? Why would an unmarried couple not wanting to get married prefer a civil partnership?

[Rhiannon]

Is there, in practice rather than legally, any difference between a civil partnership and marriage? Why would an unmarried couple not wanting to get married prefer a civil partnership?

Leaving aside the fact that gay couples have the right to choose which straight don't, 'marriage' comes with a huge amount of baggage - in many cultures it involved subservience and ownership of the wife.

My personal view is that having been in a marriage with someone who made a mockery of all that is supposed to mean I will never be 'owned' as a wife again. But I would like the right to the same legal protection as gay couples can have through civil partnership.

[Gordon]

I think this needs to be made available to all that opt for this instead of legal marriage.

As Rhi says it was a fudge created, I suspect, on the assumption that legal marriage couldn't ever be extended to same-sex couples so if it is to stay then it needs to be discrimination-free. In addition some might see a civil partnership as their preferred option, and if so then on what basis should they be denied access to something that is available to others.

The mistake was in ring-fencing civil partnerships when they were first introduced. 

[Udayana]

So it's just the word, "marriage", that is unacceptable?

Surely anyone sharing significant parts of their lives with others eg. having children with them, sharing property ownership or other financial affairs, should ensure a proper contractual understanding/basis for this. Marriage/civil partnership is just agreeing to a standard, template, contract. It could be called "Form ZGX64" for all that matters?

[Udayana]

I think this needs to be made available to all that opt for this instead of legal marriage.

As Rhi says it was a fudge created, I suspect, on the assumption that legal marriage couldn't ever be extended to same-sex couples so if it is to stay then it needs to be discrimination-free. In addition some might see a civil partnership as their preferred option, and if so then on what basis should they be denied access to something that is available to others.

The mistake was in ring-fencing civil partnerships when they were first introduced.

Mostly agree, but a couple, or trio, or anyone really, could just draw up and agree their own contract?

[Nearly Sane]

Is there, in practice rather than legally, any difference between a civil partnership and marriage? Why would an unmarried couple not wanting to get married prefer a civil partnership?

Very little but some differences as covered here


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

[Rhiannon]

So it's just the word, "marriage", that is unacceptable?

Surely anyone sharing significant parts of their lives with others eg. having children with them, sharing property ownership or other financial affairs, should ensure a proper contractual understanding/basis for this. Marriage/civil partnership is just agreeing to a standard, template, contract. It could be called "Form ZGX64" for all that matters?

In a sense I agree. But civil partnership and marriage are deemed to be different things for gay couples who have the right to opt for either. Why can't straight couples? The only alternative is to phase out all civil partnerships.

[Rhiannon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37834074

[Udayana]

I agree that if both forms of contract exist, they should be equally available to anyone. It just seems wasteful to have both - as civil partnerships seem more up-to-date and politically correct maybe they should be kept and marriage made obsolete.

[Rhiannon]

It's not really about political correctness - that devalues the beliefs and experiences of those who don't want marriage. And I see no reason to get rid of marriage when most people seem to want to retain it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

I had no idea civil partnerships only applied to gay couples, surely heterosexuals should have that option too.

Sorry to be pedantic, but it doesn't apply only to gay couples - it applies to same sex couples. Whether they happen to indulge in the bedroom tango with each other is no-one's business but their own.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

I'd never remarry...

And right there the guttering candle of my forlorn hope finally went out... 

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

And right there the guttering candle of my forlorn hope finally went out... 

And yet there is forever the consolation of endless logical fallacies to expose. Courage, mon brave.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

And yet there is forever the consolation of endless logical fallacies to expose. Courage, mon brave.

I know Rhi, I know...thank you helping me see the light once again...

[Jack Knave]

I don't understand this at all. What is the difference for hetero couples between marriage and CP's? What is the fuss all about, why don't they just get marriage or live together?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Mostly agree, but a couple, or trio, or anyone really, could just draw up and agree their own contract?

I remember a few years ago there was a test case which involved two elderly unmarried sisters who wished to form a civil partnership for the purposes of avoiding extortionate taxation when one of them died, the old ladies lost for the same reason as did the young couple. I am left with the thought that since civil partnership has no definition of consummation, there is no obligation on the civil partners to have intimate relations. Is this really what the supporters of this campaign want, to give the impression that their partnership is nothing more than a business arrangement?

Ultimately IMHO Civil Partnerships are best seen as pacemakers, speeding things up & improving the end result, but not the final winners themselves.

[Nearly Sane]

I remember a few years ago there was a test case which involved two elderly unmarried sisters who wished to form a civil partnership for the purposes of avoiding extortionate taxation when one of them died, the old ladies lost for the same reason as did the young couple. I am left with the thought that since civil partnership has no definition of consummation, there is no obligation on the civil partners to have intimate relations. Is this really what the supporters of this campaign want, to give the impression that their partnership is nothing more than a business arrangement?

Ultimately IMHO Civil Partnerships are best seen as pacemakers, speeding things up & improving the end result, but not the final winners themselves.

I don't see how they could have lost for the same reason. I would suspect they list because of being close relations.

[Udayana]

From my pov marriage and CPs are "business arrangements". Relationships are between the partners and their families themselves and could be completely fluid. The reason for the contract is because society requires stability for the support of children, elderly and so on.
 
This is why the government chooses to reward people in 2 person officially registered legal partnerships (ie CP or marriage) with some legal and financial advantages. The case of the two sisters was unfair, as the system is unfair, though slightly less so than in the past.

The main question for society is what to do about the increasing number of cohabiting couples having children outside of any official arrangement so usually without any stability or certainty following splits.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I don't see how they could have lost for the same reason. I would suspect they list because of being close relations.

Just for clarification, they lost because the law as it stands is that CP's are for gay couples only.

[Nearly Sane]

Just for clarification, they lost because the law as it stands is that CP's are for gay couples only.

Can you provide a citation because the law doesn't say you have to be gay?