General Chat

I wonder why heterosexual couples can't choose to have a civil partnership instead of marriage, I'm sure it would suit some people more than marriage would.

Or is there a reason why it isn't available to heterosexual couples?

I have never thought about, but is a civil partnership much different to a registry office wedding.
I don't really know as I have not been to a civil partnership service.

Interesting question. I suppose the answer that springs to mind is to do with the shock and horror of calling a homosexual union a marriage, so the term civil partership seems to have been used to avoid that.

However, it exists in France (called a PAC) and 95% of 'marriages' under this are heterosexual .For every 3 'marriages, there are 2 PAC's in that country. I see there is at least one couple campaigning to be allowed to unite in a civil partnership, which seems to make sense to me.

They claim - and I agree - that the term 'marriage' has a symbolism going back hundreds of years and was devised to give the man control over a woman. I see no reason why a couple should not be able to choose their own particular brand of making their union 'lega'l and claim the tax and other advantages shared by any other couples, of whatever sexual persuasion.

So why not - good post!

How interesting, I had never thought about it, but yes why can´t heterosexual couples have a civil partnership.

Great post Lynda

The marriage act can only be performed lawfully by the acts of whatever between a man and woman.

,,,,,,I supose a civil partnership would amount to living together.

Mind some marriages would be better as a civil partnership.
:-D :-D

I am not overly bothered about a sheet of green paper anyway.

Eldrick, I don't think there are any tax advantages now for a married couple, if there is I haven't found one :-(

I can see no reason why there should not be a 'common law partner agreement' for hetero and gay couples apart from the huge sums any authority engaged to set it up would waste!

Marriage isn't for everyone gay or straight!

You're probably right, Sue - but there are inheritance and next of kin issues. I think most couples are taxed seperately now I think about it....

I've often pondered that question myself . I've been with my OH for almost 21 years but we have never got round to tieing the knot . I've been " me " for so many years and don't like the idea of being Mrs him ..... lol
I like the idea of being civil partners much more .

Marriages and civil partnerships in a registry office can be between a man and a man, a man and a woman or a woman and a woman. It is a legal ceremony and means that there is a commitment in front of witnesses and assets go to the partner on death etc.

They can be blessed in any church or any place of worship if someone is prepared to bless the union. And plenty of Vicars and congregations would be prepared for that.

Don't know about other faiths, but there are strict rules about Christian marriage,
Firstly it should be between two believers in Christ. We were grilled quite hard by our Vicar in North Wales back in 1979, and I think that still happens.
Secondly, it must be between a man and a woman.
Thirdly, it should be for the procreation of children.
Rules are for the strict obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men, so some relaxation in those rules ie elderly couples who are unlikely to have children unless their names are Abraham and Sarah. But you can see that a Christian marriage is very different from a civic marriage (or partnership) that is later blessed in a church ceremony

Edit Had not realised that same sex marriage was not yet allowed in UK. Being debated next week in House of Commons apparently.

John,,,,without a Will a partner doesnt get automatic rights of assets in a civil partnership between same sex couples.Its rocky ground as the partner is not lawfully classed as NOK.

I'm not talking about Christian anything, I asked the question about civil partnerships which isn't anything to do with religion.

I've pondered the question for a while now, thought that it'd be a good idea for lots of reasons, and would suit lots of people.

If it ever becomes an option, and you decide to have a civil partnership Amanda I want to be there :-D

Perhaps I should see my MP and ask him to make civil partnerships an option for all :-D

Are you certain about that Kay?? :-S

Looking at a site http://www.civilpartnershipinfo.co.uk/ seems to suggest differently, but it was created in 2006 so could be outdated.

If Civil Marriages could be renamed as Civil Partnerships, it would be an even better step towards equality. There really would be a one size fits all for non-religious couples.

If the option ever becomes available Lynda , I'll be sure to send you an invite :-)

Lynda, please excuse me for talking about christians but christian marriages do not have to be two believers in christ.
My daughter an atheist was married in church to a christian.She told the vicar she was an atheist but wanted her day to have bells ringing and a choir singing.
The vicar said that was ok.

I have gay friends and they face prejudice when it comes to data protection re their health.

One goes into hospital and partner phones for update and as they are not married in any sense of the word they cannot get information.

An acknowledgement of a civil partnership agreement would mean the person closest in their lives can get important information.

I know the inheritance problem can only be solved by making a very clear will which cannot be challenged.

It will probably be a legal minefield for some years to come.

If they have no Civil Partnership (with a bit of paper) perhaps they ought to lie and say they have? There's bound to be loads of hetrosexual couples who aren't married who say they are!

Really, the hospital needs to train its staff to be more understanding although we can guess it can be a minefield if a blood relative tries to cut the Partner out of the information loop.

:-(

An interesting Question...I had never considered before, having imagined a civil partnership was on a par with a registry office wedding

So I suppose there is still an element of discrimination

Thanks Sues,,,,,,,I know its not an automatic right of a partners assetts Det in same sex civil partnerships.NOK have all the legal rights unless a detailed Will is made.

all should be able to have access to what ever marriages they wish.,,,and to who they want.

But certain religons will most certainly not ever allow this,,,,,,so many will become ex-comunicated.

Sorry Lynda, off topic again.

The problem with not tying up the estate is: any debts will be considered as joint with the partner, therefore the creditors will immediately chase him/her for recovery. The nett value after tax and legal fees will go directly to next of kin.

This is really relevant if property is included in the estate. Much of someone's wealth is just on paper but debts are high priority with creditors and they will not wait for sale of property or probate. They will aggresively chase the surviving partner whether in any arranged union or not. If they both used the account the survivor is stuffed and the NOK are laughing their socks off!

Meerkat I did say that rules are for the guidance of wise men. It often happens now in churches that one partner is not a Christian at all.

Lynda Sorry to mention dreaded word. But I have thought about this issue quite a bit and most marriages today are very different to marriages 50 years ago, as we know from family history.

Many people want to dress up and have photos taken outside a church still. And the prettier churches rake in quite a lot of wonga for weddings (with value added products like choirs as well). And they rely on that income, which must be dwindling fast these days.

Would it not be just as magical if couples exchanged promises to each other in a civil ceremony in a registry office, hotel, wherever registered cilvil marriages can take place. Then - as an optional extra - go to a beautiful church to have their union blessed and take lovely photos, if they want that.

Win-win? :-)