Heterosexual civil partnerships

[bluehillside Retd.]

Humph,

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

It's same sex, not gay.

[Nearly Sane]

If the case referred to is that of the Utleys then as the article below by Catherine Utley makes clear it was specifically the close familial relationship that was the issue.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/yes-civil-partnership-laws-deeply-unfair-to-relatives-like-me-and-my-sister/

[Udayana]

In any case - it is clearly unfair and discriminatory.

[Bubbles]

TBH I don't see the point.
Civil partnership was only created because people of the same sex couldn't marry.

Well now they can.

You can make marriage what you want, you don't have to take your husbands name if you don't want to.

I see no point in keeping civil partnership

[Udayana]

TBH I don't see the point.
Civil marriage was only created because people of the same sex couldn't marry.

Well now they can.

You can make marriage what you want, you don't have to take your husbands name if you don't want to.

I see no point in keeping civil marriage.

"civil marriage" - oh dear, an open invitation to the wording police!

[SusanDoris]

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

seems to me that if there is a law enabling two people of the same sex to enter into a legal parnnnership of some sort, then two people not of the same sex should have the same right. In the same way, of course, marriage should be available to couples of opposite or same sex. I'm not sure what I think about people like two sisters or two brothers.

[Bubbles]

"civil marriage" - oh dear, an open invitation to the wording police!

I was in a bit of a rush 

[Jack Knave]

I was in a bit of a rush 

You will be subjected to a breathalyzer word test, by the Mods, to ensue you aren't over your limit in English grammar. Refusal to partake in such a test will mean a body search for band vocabulary.

[Harrowby Hall]

What kind of band, Jack?  Elastic, brass or hair?

[Sassy]

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.

You would think people would grow up, wouldn't you. What a load of rubbish. THEY wanted 15 minutes of fame or rather to be in the history books. I think they would be best remaining as they are as a civil partnership like marriage to some is just the legal protection.

I wish they would find something worth fighting for like cures for the worst diseases mankind face.

[Jack Knave]

What kind of band, Jack?  Elastic, brass or hair?

 

A very loud free jazz one! 

[Free Willy]

Case reopened

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-05-14/heterosexual-couple-take-civil-partnership-fight-to-uks-highest-court/

[floo]

Gay or straight, couples should be able to have a civil partnership if they so wish.

[SusanDoris]

Case reopened

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-05-14/heterosexual-couple-take-civil-partnership-fight-to-uks-highest-court/

Yes, I hope the couple win. I can think of no logical reason why it should not be allowed.

[Rhiannon]

I’d love to be able to face this option. I’ve heard that the Isle of Man is popular with straight British couples seeking civil partnerships as they are open to all couples there.

[Spud]

If civil partnerships were created to give same sex partners the same legal rights as married couples when they were not allowed to get married,, and now they can get married, surely civil partnerships are no longer needed and the logical thing would be to scrap them?

[Nearly Sane]

If civil partnerships were created to give same sex partners the same legal rights as married couples when they were not allowed to get married,, and now they can get married, surely civil partnerships are no longer needed and the logical thing would be to scrap them?

They aren't the same rights.

[Harrowby Hall]

I presume that the Equalities Act 2010 says nothing about the matter.

[Robbie]

I can't pretend to really understand the need for this.

[SusanDoris]

I presume that the Equalities Act 2010 says nothing about the matter.

There might not be an actual need for it, but it is on principle that it should be allowed.

[Rhiannon]

I can't pretend to really understand the need for this.

I don’t want to get married again but I’d like some legal protection should I choose to cohabit with a partner. While cps exist I’d like the right to opt for one.

[Spud]

From what I can make out, CPs cannot be dissolved because of adultery, and that's about the only major difference between them and marriages. I suppose one reason for not allowing heterosexual couples CPs is that it could mean children born to them could suffer, if adultery is "allowed".

[Rhiannon]

From what I can make out, CPs cannot be dissolved because of adultery, and that's about the only major difference between them and marriages. I suppose one reason for not allowing heterosexual couples CPs is that it could mean children born to them could suffer, if adultery is "allowed".

Oh bless. You do know that gay couples have kids too, right?

And the state doesn’t legislate as to whether adultery is ‘allowed’ or not. Individual couples do.

[Spud]

Well isn't that lovely.

[Rhiannon]

Well isn't that lovely.

Yes, it is.

Some couples forgive affairs and move on. Some have open relationships. And for a CP being unfaithful counts as ‘unreasonable behaviour’ which is grounds for dissolving the partnership. It’s actually a more mature way of treating adultery.