Heterosexual Civil Partnerships - should they be allowed?

[ciallkennett]

I was reading this article and the issue surrounding it left me to ponder the following question:

Should we allow opposite-sex civil partnerships in the same way we offer same-sex partnerships?

Personally, I believe that we should as some people find it a lot harder to commit to something as binding and stressful as a marriage, but still want to show their commitment to their partner in another way. Plus the expensive cost of marriage in terms of service and such is too much for some people.

Also, saying that heterosexual couples cannot be in a civil partnership is very heterophobic, as is saying that homosexual couples cannot be married is very homophobic.

However, if we do allow these, I believe marriage levels will drop even further, which is of course bad times for all.

Your views?

 

[Ian]

A couple should be allowed to commit to each other in the way that it best suits and satisfies them, be it marriage, civil partnership or even just living together.

So, yes.

 

[Snoo]

^Exactly.

Anyone should be able whatever they want.

 

[Ben]

I thought they were already allowed...?

They refer to them as that on Wedding House all the time at least...

But, apparently they're not, and the woman on Wedding House is just retarded... They should be, they should be unions between two people of any sex... I didn't know that, how bizarre.

 

[Dave]

It should be equal, as it's only religion that 'decrees' it isn't allowed.

 

[furie]

Lots wrong here I think.

First up there's the assertion that a civil partnership is somehow a "semi-commitment".

"Shall we get married?"
"Well, I don't know, I'd like to show some commitment, but have a kind of easy get out clause. You know, the secretary at work is pretty fit and I think she's been giving me the eye. So I wouldn't want to get married just to get a divorce in a couple of months time after I sleep with her at the Christmas party. However, I can definitely see the advantages of a civil partnership to help with tax, benefits and if you were to somehow get killed by the work's secretary driving too fast and knocking you down..."
"Okay then my love, civil partnership it is!"

Civil partnerships were set up to allow homosexual couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples. This is simply because UK law (and I assume other laws in other countries, I don't know) does not allow for homosexuals to be married. Homosexual couples do NOT have the option of marriage in the UK.

A civil partnership is a halfway step by the government (half arsed too IMO) to acknowledge the modern day lifestyle. Gay couples live together (and commit together) in the same way straight couples do. They just couldn't formalise it. So if a gay couple lived together and built a home over 40 years, then one died? The deceased family would have "first dibs" on their estate. A civil partnership gives their partner the same rights as a married partner in a straight couple (i.e. the partner gets first dibs).

It's important to understand it's not a "can't be titsed with marriage, let's get civil partnershipped". It's an important legal standpoint and the only legally recognised way for a homosexual couple to prove they are life partners. Marriage just isn't an option.

So, with that taken into account, NO. Heterosexual couples should not be allowed civil partnerships.

If you want to live with somebody and not commit? Fine.

If you want to commit, then get married, or if you're a gay couple, get civil partnershipped. It's just like that.

Marriage is generally a religious ceremony.

Over here, we have "government marriage". I was married by the state, not a religious ceremony. It's essentially the same as a civil partnership, a legally recognised binding contract of commitment. No church was involved at all

It's very common over here. To then add to Ciall's point about stress and expense. I think, including the reception and clothes, our wedding cost about £500. The honeymoon cost considerably more (but that's an optional extra ).

It was a simple day, very relaxed and everyone had a lot of fun. No stress, no great expense. All that is what you make of it. I have other friends who have just "nipped to a registry office" and got married without telling anyone at all. No fuss, just a piece of paper to say they're committed. Their lives were no different afterwards really (makes you wonder why bother, but ho hum).

My view on it is the same as it is on gay marriage or any of that - offer secular options for anyone, but don't force a religion to do anything they don't believe in.

Going to rant a bit here; sorry :lol:

First up, I agree. If the religion says "we think homosexuality is wrong", then they shouldn't agree to marry homosexual couples. Same as Catholics won't marry divorcees (I think that's still the case). It goes against their views, and they shouldn't (and I don't think can be) forced to perform the ceremony.

However, how anyone homosexual can actually be part of most major organised religions with their views on homosexuality is beyond me. So I suspect it's actually a moot point. I think if you have to argue with the foundations of a faith to get them to sanctify your partnership, then there's something wrong with your choice of faith really.

And this leads me to the rant :lol:

I hate, really really hate (and sorry if this offends anyone) people who demand a church wedding who aren't religious. People who maybe were forced to go to Sunday school and retain some vague idea of religion, but believe that marriage should happen in a church. Same goes for christenings.

I don't know if anyone knows much about the process behind marriage and christenings? You have to apply to the church for the right to do it. The church will then question you, ask if you're committed to God and the church and then you must attend church in the weeks leading up to the marriage/christening.

On the day, you must then offer your commitment to the Lord and church for their sanctimony over your wedding/christening.

This is a big thing to me. Unless you are actually (seriously) intending to then stay with the church, regularly attending the rest of your life (and ensuring your children attend after a christening) then I think it's a terrible lie. It's something that I just really dislike.

There are other options available, take those and don't lie and make a mockery of the beliefs of people who actually take it seriously. Sorry, rant over :lol:

 

[ECG]

Over here, we have "government marriage". I was married by the state, not a religious ceremony. It's essentially the same as a civil partnership, a legally recognised binding contract of commitment. No church was involved at all

...It was a simple day, very relaxed and everyone had a lot of fun. No stress, no great expense. All that is what you make of it.

Same here. The wife is Chinese, so no religious beliefs whatsoever. We were married by a justice of peace in a simple ceremony that cost us virtually nothing. Still happily married after 21 years together.
So yeah, no need for heterosexual civil partnerships. Just get married if you want the commitment & leave the church out of it if you're not religious.

 

[Martyn]

And this leads me to the rant :lol:

I hate, really really hate (and sorry if this offends anyone) people who demand a church wedding who aren't religious. People who maybe were forced to go to Sunday school and retain some vague idea of religion, but believe that marriage should happen in a church. Same goes for christenings.

I don't know if anyone knows much about the process behind marriage and christenings? You have to apply to the church for the right to do it. The church will then question you, ask if you're committed to God and the church and then you must attend church in the weeks leading up to the marriage/christening.

On the day, you must then offer your commitment to the Lord and church for their sanctimony over your wedding/christening.

This is a big thing to me. Unless you are actually (seriously) intending to then stay with the church, regularly attending the rest of your life (and ensuring your children attend after a christening) then I think it's a terrible lie. It's something that I just really dislike.

There are other options available, take those and don't lie and make a mockery of the beliefs of people who actually take it seriously. Sorry, rant over :lol:

I agree! I had this discussion quite recently actually.

I'd like to get married in the future, and I'd like it to be a "nice" ceremony, but I don't want to get married in a church.

It's a shame, because I like churches, they're very interesting buildings, but I'm very atheist, and if I was getting married "in the sight of God", I'd just feel like I was taking the piss out of them.

I'm sure there are plenty of other nice buildings around, though, and I'm getting ahead of myself anyway... :lol: I'm missing quite a vital piece of the wedding puzzle at the moment!

 

[furie]

Cake?

 

[Anonymous]

Hello everybody,

I came across this thread while I was searching for information on civil partnership for heterosexuals and since it's a very important subject to me at the moment, I would like to share my point of view.

My partner and I are heterosexual couple who have got registered (equivalent of civil partnership in the UK) under Dutch law. We have consciously chosen for registered partnership for several reasons. Here the only differences between registered partnership and marriage are the divorce procedure (you just go to lawyer and dissolve it if no children are involved; if children are involved, you go to court as the married couple would do in any case (whether with or without children) and the fact that the male partner has to acknowledge the pregnancy (I would have to write a letter confirming he is a father and he would have to accept it before the birth), so he is not "automatically" a legal father of his child as it is in a marriage situation (which makes me cynically laugh since you as a male never cant be sure if it's your child, whether you are married or not). We feel we are responsible individuals and if we ever decide to separate, we will have done everything to save our union already, we do not want the court to interfere unless children are involved and their rights and interests must be protected (if we got so mad on each other so that we had lost our common sense in handling stuff... it's always good to know the state would do something for the kids). Second reason is the cultural background of marriage. Neither of us is a Dutch national and my partner comes from the islam-dominant country, we were both terrified to find out that I would have to convert to islam in order to have our marriage be accepted in his home country! We would never ever accept it, so my partner has chosen to be with me and oppose his culture. The civil partnership was for us a golden middle. We didnt want to enter marriage without his family being present, but we still wanted to legalise our relationship. I want him to be able to make medical decisions if something happened to me, I want him to inherit everything if I pass away, and so on. Now, we have made plans to move to the UK to continue our academic careers. So guess what, our union is not accepted in the UK! I was shocked, and devastated that there is such a huge segregation between the forms of unions. Here, both heterosexual and homosexual couples and marry or enter registered partnership and cohabiting couples have a lot of rights and protection. In the UK, there is no protection for cohabiting couples unless they have any form of a contract, the heterosexual couples have only one option - marriage; the homosexual couples have only one option - civil partnership. I'm sorry if I offend somebody, but this is a severely retarded, outdated at least, system. At the age of 21st century, where most couples first cohabit before they enter any form of union if they ever decide it, the state should update the laws to fit the needs of the society. At least I thought that is the main duty of the state.
I really hope that the law of civil partnership will be extended soon to heterosexual couples as much as I hope for the right to marriage will be extended to homosexual couples.

 

[furie]

Interesting to have a different, and pretty unique viewpoint on this

I can see where you're coming from and it's bit of an unusual place if I may say so. I don't know how many people will be in similar situations.

One thing though. I understand the legal difference between the civil partnership and marriage. One requiring court proceedings, the other simply a dissolving of the partnership. The question really is is there that[i/] much difference between the two things? Today a divorce is a pretty straightforward and uncomplicated business here. Sign a few papers and as long as nobody is too unhappy, it all goes through.

I'm sure that it's a pretty simple procedure from what I've seen.

This leads me on... Your Dutch civil partnership won't be "valid" in partner's home country either I suspect. What is the difference between a civil marriage then and a civil partnership when neither will be accepted in his home country?

Likewise, you'll never get married religiously for the reasons you state, so his parents will never attend a wedding between you.

In essence, and I know there's an emotional/traditional take to this too, why not just get married in a civil ceremony? It doesn't actually make any real difference as far as I can see.

I'm just trying to understand the really nitty gritty difference between a civil partnership and marriage.

Oh, and compared to the Netherlands, the UK is pretty much a LONG way behind the advanced social state of the Dutch

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

I was surprised that actually quite a lot of people are in a similar situation like ours. In few other countries the civil partnership is available for straight couples as well, so they all stumble upon this problem, if they want to move to the UK or other country where civil partnership is available for same sex couples only.

Here, divorce is really a pain for married couples. It takes a lot of time (you get a thinking period of six months, to start with), and court has to discuss all the points, even if you have agreed on certain things yourself already (like division of the real estate for example). So what many couples do if they want to get divorced quickly is change their legal status of marriage to registered partnership and then go that road. But the government has made it very difficult recently to change the status of marriage to partnership. So, to keep it short, over here it's not just signing a few papers and then you are done with it.

The difference of the validity of either marriage or partnership in my partner's home country is also present. The concept of marriage is present there, so the pressure would be huge to make it legal there. My partner respects the values of his parents, but has disowned their values, but still he doesnt want to challenge his parents and relatives. The concept of registered partnership is non-existent there, so it's easier in that sense. In their point of view, we are still bf and gf and they sort of accepted it, so we want to keep it quiet if you know what I mean :lol: Dealing with other culture isn't always easy, and sometimes you just have to make weird compromises.

Plus, I felt it would be unfair for him if we got married, even in civil ceremony (again, marriage is marriage everywhere, so the pressure would be sky-high to make it legal there as well, plus it might cause trouble in his home country, if we refuse to legalise it, according to the sharia law). Civil partnership is unknown thing there, so legally we are also not doing anything wrong. And at the end of the day, I would be married in my country, he would be illegally married in his. It just felt wrong.

But apart from the complicated cultural situation in our case, I think that it's about the right time to introduce the gradient of marriage, if you like, as many couples cohabit and want some rights, but not others, or not the whole package of marriage. I think it is a bit strange when the government tries to reinforce the traditional concepts while the society moves in a totally different direction. It just will not change anything.

Marriage is merely a right, not a privilege, so the whole discussion of civil partnership undermining marriage is really weird for me.

 

[furie]

I can understand that. As I say, I know there's a certain tie or "tradition" that comes with an official marriage which is understandable. A "stigma" almost if you like (used probably negatively and positively depending on the point of view :lol: ).

I just quickly checked up on our divorce proceedings here. As long as it's not contested, it can be done by filling out forms and paying £150. You can't do it in your first year though, and you can only have "agreed divorce" if you've been married two years. Even children aren't an issue as long as the arrangements are clearly laid out on the form.

So it's pretty simple as long as the split has consent of both parties.

I guess this is why a civil partnership scheme not something that has ever really been considered? We have options for religious and civil marriages, with both easy enough to get out of if required.

I'm not entirely sure what differences there are in a marriage "package" and a civil partnership "package"? From what I can see, they're both just different names for pretty much exactly the same thing? That may just be me looking at things very simplistically though.

I don't think the idea of civil partnership undermines marriage at all. I'd be perfectly happy for the civil marriage here to be called civil partnership. Leave actual "marriages" to the churches. It's just an expression to me of life long commitment and it's the act of formalising which is important, not what it's called or the legal ins and outs. You can do that simply by moving in and buying an expensive property together. As long as you're committed to each other, what does it really matter?

 

[Anonymous]

Apart from the stigma, there are indeed very few, but very significant differences between partnership and marriage here, as I mentioned. Divorce and kids. The rest is the same, like next-of-kin right, inheritance, financial responsibilies and rights, taxes, pension arrangements etc. The divorce procedure here is really a huge difference, the marriage is meant for life and you are not supposed to get ouf it easily :lol: So for that matter, yes, the UK marriage is not that much different from the partnership in the Netherlands. So why isn't our partnership considered equal to marriage then in the UK? Because now in the UK we will be considered two singles living together, that is all. And that is, how to put it, slightly annoying for us.

I am curious, what are the exact legal differences between marriage and civil partnership in the UK then? Apart from the straight and gay issue of course and the church involvement.

 

[furie]

A quick look into it and they're identical in everything other than name. "Divorce" proceeding are the same and application for it is pretty much the same. Legally, they're on a level pegging too. It's just that the UK likes its archaic laws :lol:

I guess the issue between them is the difference between our level of "marriage commitment" and the Dutch (and all others around the world). I suppose it's because marriage is an ancient contractual agreement between couples and is pretty much on a level around the world.

If you were married here for instance, and then went to live in The Netherlands, would you expect your marriage to be classed as a civil partnership or marriage there? Our marriage laws are probably closer to your civil partnership laws. I think you'd end up with a thousand different forms of agreement depending on the country of "contractual agreement" :lol:

I think the answer is simply recognition of the contractual agreement made in another country. I think you're right and it needs addressing here too.

So for you, you have a civil partnership in The Netherlands, the government should accept you as being in a state of "UK Marriage". So you're not married, but the government recognises you as being in the same state. Obviously any changes would have to go through the Dutch courts as that's where your original civil partnership was arranged.

I think that makes sense? Though it wouldn't help people in your exact situation who are living in the UK. Though you can have lawyers draw up contracts between you and partner to cover you legally. It's a bit cold though I think.

"I now pronounce you legally and contractually bound" - The postman delivering the letter of contract. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

If we were married in the UK, and moved to the Netherlands or any other country, we would get the status of marriage, and not civil partnership. The main issue here is legal rights of a father. In a civil partnership there must be a letter of recognition from the father and letter of agreement from the mother. The mother has the right to keep the child for herself while in civil partnership if she wants to, and in that case the father should fight it out in the court and go through DNA testing. While in the marriage, a husband is automatically a legal father for children born in that marriage. So for that matter, if we get married in the UK, my partner gets this right of children, but if we chose for the civil partnership after moving to the Netherlands if we could, it would be a "downgrade" for him in that matter. In the same way, if UK recognizes us a married couple, it will be an "upgrade" for him, since the Dutch law does not include this right. That is the source of the problem here I think. Although we chose partnership mainly because of the divorce regulations and the fact it is not recognized in my partner's home country was an advantage for us because of emotional and legal (sharia) reasons, the children right is the main problem why our partnership is not made equal to UK marriage.

There are three ways out of it. To get married in the UK (we just keep getting married), but it's not an option because of the pressure and other reasons already stated. Accept it and live as two single people, which is a bit weird after living together for some years in partnership. Or join the equal love movement in the UK. Which we dont have time for ...

So basically, the main difference between marriage and civil partnership in the UK is the name. I am sorry, but this is pure discrimination. At least in the Netherlands there is a gradient in rights that are given in the partnership and marriage. But in the UK the route you go is defined by your sexual orientation only. And this is just fundamentally wrong.

Either UK just forgets about the whole civil partnership thing, changes it into marriage, and makes in accessible to gay couples as well, or introduces two levels of marriage, one with legal/financial/next-of-kin agreements only, and other, the full package. I read also that the gay couples in the UK can now marry in church as well so the line between civil partnership and marriage is completely vague now.

 

[furie]

As I said in my first post, heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed a civil partnership simply because it's just "the name for a gay marriage". There's no difference and to allow heterosexuals that right is to then discriminate against gays (who only have civil partnerships after years of fighting for marriage).

So yes, it's a real mess and it needs sorting out. At the very least get the names the same for the same things. I can't see there being much social reform to be honest at the moment, though the Prime Minister may throw the deputy PM a bone on this one to make him feel like he's something other than a nodding dog. However, while I think perhaps they may get the civil partnership renamed to marriage, it's unlikely they'll add civil partnership then to the list of options

 

[Anonymous]

But then it's really bad, if the option of civil partnership gets completely cleared from the table. What about all the British citizens who cohabit and do not want to enter marriage for whatever reasons they have? By just cohabiting they have no rights at all. The big part of the british population is then simply ignored. I would get really pissed about that if I was a British citizen

 

[furie]

It's not an option we've ever had though. So it's no different at all to how it's always been - which is the British way

If you're gay, you have a civil partnership.
If you're straight you get married.

Or you don't and you cohabit without rights. Though if you tried to claim benefits, the government would class you as a couple - they always win :lol:

Our only other option is to have a legal contract drawn up, which I think is kind of common...

 

[marc]

The only reason Civil Partnership is around is due to the fact a gay couple cannot be married due to religion/law or whatever reason there is. If anything I would prefer to be married than be in a Civil Partnership, which to me the whole thing is just the same anyway just the name is different.

The only time religion comes into any of it is if you get married in a church, if you get married in an office or park etc by someone other than a memeber of the church its the same as a Civil Partnership.

I am just not sure why people want it to be called anything other than marriage, or am I missing something.

Just to clear one thing up btw, if you have been living with someone for 3 years and been paying towards bills and council tax you have rights. I do not understand why people think they do not have any. If for example your partner is out of work the governemt look at what your partner brings in before saying what you can get. This happened to gay friends of mine and they were not even in a Civil Partnership, they were not even around then. Sorry Furie covered this as well.

The main benefit of marriage/civil partnership is when one person dies and you own a house. It stops the government charging the other tax. Where before the partnership a gay couple could have had a house for 20 years, one dies and the other has to pay again for what they have already been paying for.

Sorry if I have totally missed the point, I just do not get what the point really is. If people want there marriage to be called by a different then what is the big deal, allow them to it is just a name.