Civil partnerships for heterosexual couples

[Booldawg]

Sorry, can only find old news link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

A couple local to us are fighting their case this week for civil partnerships to be made legal for hetero couples. As it stands CPs are only recognised for same sex couples.

Have they got a case? or not really because they could get married. Are CPs a good compromise for people who want to commit but not neccessarily do the whole married thing?

[jackthehat]

My understanding is that it is an attempt to force the issue of 'same-sex marriage' back into focus.
Civil Partnerships, whilst going some way in the right direction are still not comparable to marriage..........this issue hope to redress that.

Hetero-sexual couples face a similar bar in attempting CP as gay couples do in attempting Marriage........." It's not for YOU........it's for THEM.".

[rov1100]

Calling same sex marriages is an oxymoron and just like the word gays or even guys when applied to both sexes should be erased from the English language.

[LoftyLottie]

Ridiculous. The same choices should apply to everybody. I can see no reason why not. Why can't a gay couple get a civil 'wedding' same as hetrosexuals.

In other words I think they should win their case.

[LoftyLottie]

A civil partnership sounds like a business deal to me. Why can't they just be called a spouse!!

[craft1948]

I think it's because the definition of marriage is a union betwen a man and a woman.

[ganesh]

Yes,you're right,some of us don't want the whole marriage bother but would appreciate the same legal benefits that go with it and so a civil ptnship should be available to all.Hope they win their case!

[mollykins]

I thought it would be able the whole religiousness of a proper marriage which atheists wouldn't want, but you can get properly married in somewhere nowhere near a church without hymns or anything religous, so what's the point, are they just being awkward?

[ganesh]

No,the law is being awkward.

[LoftyLottie]

What is the difference legally between a civil partnership and a registry office wedding then. A registry office wedding is just a simple legal ceremony from what I remember. (I had had a few drinks!!)

[ethandron]

what's the difference between a civil partnership and a registry office wedding in legal terms? there are no vows or religeous connotations at a registry office, it's purely a civil ceremony.

[boxtops]

no molly, you are missing the point - they don't want to get married, they want to live together without the trappings of marriage, they want to have their living-together recognised as a formal partnership. Lots of people live together for years without any formal recognition - they're looking to formalise it without having to go through a civil marriage.

[ethandron]

oooh, snap lottie :)

[LoftyLottie]

I really would like to know the benefits of a Civil Partnership over a Civil Wedding. I might be missing out. I still think there should be only one or the other. Leave out the word marriage if necessary. (That could still be used for church weddings).

[boxtops]

Exactly ethandron - I don't really understand the difference, if a civil partnership is going to give you the same rights as a civil marriage - unless one of the partners had a reason for not wanting to be "married".

[joggerjayne]

Oh, purleeez.

How nice for these people that they have nothing more pressing to worry about than ...

... the "name" given to their relationship.

[LoftyLottie]

But boxtops a civil 'marriage' is no more complicated than a civil partnership ceremony. 5 minutes. And if a civil partnership is still a formal recognition of a relationship.

[LoftyLottie]

It's all just daft!!

The law needs changing to make everybody equal!!

[ethandron]

personally, i wouldn't bother with either if i had my time again...