The Great World Debate
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 16, 2018, 11:40:13 am

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
R.I.P Nick. OLF died 13 October 2016.
119302 Posts in 5709 Topics by 86 Members
Latest Member: Dutch Rosie
* Home Help Login Register
+  The Great World Debate
|-+  The Chamber
| |-+  The Comfy Chair of Conversation
| | |-+  Straight Civil Partnerships
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Straight Civil Partnerships  (Read 111 times)
Red Herring
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14380



« on: June 27, 2018, 06:19:22 am »

It was just a question of time:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jun/27/uk-ban-on-heterosexual-civil-partnerships-ruled-discriminatory

The ruling makes perfect sense, but it's a slightly surreal place to end up. Chronology seems to be as follows:

1: There was just heterosexual marriage.

2: Then a kind of legal marriage was created for homosexuals and called civil partnerships.

3: It was agreed that homosexuals could just get married.

4. Heterosexuals ask for the right to have civil partnerships.

Talk about the burgeoning of bureaucracy - we've just ended up with two status'. One called marriage, and one called civil partnership. As far as I can see there is no significant difference between the two, beyond the word used to describe it. The idea that marriage is patriarchal and sexist strikes me as ludicrous in a time when partners can be of the same sex and write their own vows.

Civil partnerships should just have been abolished when homosexual marriage was made legal, then we wouldn't have had all this nonsense about them being discriminatory.

Red
Logged
Myky D
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18303


« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2018, 07:26:28 am »

Int mawwiage about religion, though, and Civil Partnerships just about legal rights?

If so it makes sense to get equal legal rights without having to swear allegiance to a sky fairy.
Logged
Red Herring
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14380



« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2018, 07:47:43 am »

Int mawwiage about religion?

Not any more.

You could get married in civil ceremonies that made no mention of religion long before gay marriage became legal. I know a few people that had such ceremonies precisely because they weren't religious and were worried about the patriarchy/sexist thing.

Red
Logged
Myky D
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18303


« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2018, 08:34:10 am »

Not any more.

You could get married in civil ceremonies that made no mention of religion long before gay marriage became legal. I know a few people that had such ceremonies precisely because they weren't religious and were worried about the patriarchy/sexist thing.

Red

But they were getting 'married', right? As opposed to having a 'Civil partnership'?

It sounds like nit-picking - and it is - but presumably this is the point people are making. The state should be secular now.
Logged
Dutch Rosie
Full Member
***
Posts: 251


« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2018, 08:35:28 am »

In the Netherlands we have both forms, and civil partnerships are increasingly popular (for both heteros and gays). My daughter has a civil partnership with her partner. It is useful for tax purposes, mortgages etc, but is not a marriage, and can be dissolved by just one partner going to the town hall and ending it.
Logged
Myky D
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18303


« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2018, 08:38:37 am »

"Partner" in the context of a sexual relationship is one of those silly, spineless terms - like one is still slightly awed, cowed by and thus reverent to the idea that people might judge you. Stand up and be proud, I say.
Logged
Dutch Rosie
Full Member
***
Posts: 251


« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2018, 08:50:09 am »

I can't think of a better term for what is more than a boy/girlfriend relationship and less than a marriage. A purely sexual relationship could of course use the term "lover", but I use partner because after 11 years, we really are partners.
Logged
Red Herring
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14380



« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2018, 09:20:54 am »

But they were getting 'married', right? As opposed to having a 'Civil partnership'?

Yes.

Quote
It sounds like nit-picking - and it is - but presumably this is the point people are making. The state should be secular now.

They weren't saying anything about the state being secular, and the British state is most definitely not secular. The court case was about heterosexual couples being allowed to have civil partnerships rather than marriages. It's definitely nit-picking - because it boils down to whether you want to say you're in a 'marriage' or a 'civil partership'.

Red
Logged
Myky D
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18303


« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2018, 09:27:12 am »

Yes.

They weren't saying anything about the state being secular, and the British state is most definitely not secular. The court case was about heterosexual couples being allowed to have civil partnerships rather than marriages. It's definitely nit-picking - because it boils down to whether you want to say you're in a 'marriage' or a 'civil partership'.

Red

 ... one of which implies religion.

People are quite protective of such implications and associations - call a Christian a Jew, for example,  or similar - a Scottish person British (or - shudder! - English), an atheist agnostic.

It's like people think self identity is important - where will it all end?!
Logged
Red Herring
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14380



« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2018, 09:43:57 am »

... one of which implies religion.

No - as I have already explained. A civil marriage makes no mention of religion and has no religious connotations. A civil marriage is legally the same as a marriage in church, and is not the same as a civil partnership.

Here is a useful summary of the distinctions:

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2016/01/what-are-the-differences-between-marriage-and-civil-partnership/

Civil Partnerships vs. Marriage

Civil partnerships were introduced in the UK for same-sex couples to legally unite in something like a marriage, but without some of the same legal rights. They were essentially introduced as an interim measure before equal marriage was approved.

Fundamentally there are no major differences between civil partnerships and marriage but there are some differences including:
•Civil partners cannot call themselves “married” for legal purposes.
•Civil partnership certificates include the names of both parents of the parties. Marriage certificates include the names of only the fathers of the parties.
•Adultery cannot be used as a reason to dissolve the Civil Partnership. In a marriage, if one party is unfaithful this is grounds for divorce. This isn’t the case in civil partnership dissolution. Adultery isn’t recognised in same-sex partners.

Civil partnerships are currently only available for same-sex couples and are different to civil marriages.

Civil Marriage

A civil marriage means you end up with the same rights as a religious marriage in the eyes of the law, but the ceremony is different.

The marriage ceremony is conducted by a local council official known as a registrar, rather than a vicar or priest in a church. The ceremony cannot have any religious content, including any songs or readings.


Red


Logged
Myky D
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18303


« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2018, 10:23:52 am »

So it's about getting equal rights, then. So what's the objection? Do you not think people should have equal rights because of their sexuality?
Logged
Red Herring
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14380



« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2018, 12:32:45 pm »

So it's about getting equal rights, then. So what's the objection? Do you not think people should have equal rights because of their sexuality?

Yes, the original ruling is about equal rights which is why I said it made sense.

The objection is to having two status' when one will do.

I think people should have equal rights regardless of their sexuality.

Red
Logged
Myky D
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18303


« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2018, 01:16:27 pm »

Yes, the original ruling is about equal rights which is why I said it made sense.

The objection is to having two status' when one will do.

I think people should have equal rights regardless of their sexuality.

Red

So you agree we should reduce unnecessary bureaucracy with regards to self identity (in this case civil partnership/marriage)?
Logged
Red Herring
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14380



« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2018, 01:43:35 pm »

So you agree we should reduce unnecessary bureaucracy with regards to self identity (in this case civil partnership/marriage)?

I agree with the court's ruling, but I do not think it necessary to have two different legal statuses.

You are trying (very clumsily) to relate this to the other discussion about gender identity. Don't bother, you're tied up in enough knots as it is.

Red
Logged
Myky D
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18303


« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2018, 05:05:27 pm »

Do go on about how you don't think it necessary that people who want it should be denied a different  legal recognition.
Logged
ben wedge
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8341



« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2018, 03:56:16 pm »

It cost a hell of a lot of time and money to sort out something that should not have arisen in the first place

Comes back to the perverted definition of 'equality' eld by some groups
Logged

Lone Ranger
ben wedge
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8341



« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2018, 03:59:29 pm »

Cost a hell of a lot of time and money to sort out something that should not have happened in the first place

All come down to the understanding of 'equality' in some circles

logically no law should apply to (or not apply to) certain groups of people, surely?
Logged

Lone Ranger
Red Herring
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14380



« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2018, 06:27:38 am »

Cost a hell of a lot of time and money to sort out something that should not have happened in the first place

I agree - what should have happened in the first place was gay marriage, instead of the creation of civil partnerships. However, at the time calling it marriage would have created too many problems politically so civil partnerships were the compromise.

Quote
logically no law should apply to (or not apply to) certain groups of people, surely?

Absolutely - which is why it was inevitable that the courts would find it unlawful to deny civil partnerships to heterosexuals.

The government can easily comply with the ruling by abolishing either civil partnerships or marriages - I hope they do but I doubt they will. It'll just end up as another unnecessary bureaucratic distinction, the reasons for which get lost in the mists of time.

Red
Logged
Myky D
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18303


« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2018, 07:47:14 am »

"I want to be treated like a princess!

"What - traded as a good in exchange for land and a dowry?"
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.067 seconds with 19 queries.