Marriage and civil partnerships

[#1]

I can see little difference between two people of the opposite sex to each other who decide to opt for a civil partnership rather than marriage.

I accept there are minor differences and the decision to offer civil partnerships to this group was to offer equal opportunity to all groups but personally I do not see the point...,.

Am I missing something here ?

[#2]

@gleneagles Was thinking the same here. What is the difference between a civil marriage and a registry wedding. So I must be missing something also. 

[#3]

From what I can gather initially it was providing equality to that afforded to same sex marriages. Simple enough, but the difference between the two (religion apart) is almost zero.

Not sure why but civil partners are not married and therefore cannot use adultery as a reason to dissolve it, and the names of both parents of the parties appear on the certificate.

All rather odd, but it did provide in the absence of a traditional state sanctioned marriage the means to legitimise in law their union and I guess all that goes with it such as property, obligations and children adopted or from previous marriage/s.

[#4]

When civil partnerships were introduced there were stories of heterosexual friends entering into a civil partnership in order to keep their uncaring distant relatives' greedy claws off their property should the worst happen to one of them.  It has also been reported that heterosexuals in long-term relationships have been denied access to, and information about, their hospitalised critically ill partner simply because they were not legally married.  A civil partnership should avoid this.

I overheard a young boy on the bus one day telling his friend that you didn't have to be married to be a mummy or daddy, you only had to be good friends.  Perhaps civil partnerships provide for those who want to be more than just good friends.

Purely logically, if homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, heterosexuals must have the same rights as homosexuals.

[#5]

@Jonpe 

Couple of good points there I hadn't considered.

I have an interest in this as one of my daughters is in an unmarried relationship (not unusual these days) and has a couple of kiddies. The thought that 'mother in law' could prevent her from seeing her partner should the worst happen is I know something she has not thought about.

Time for a little chat with her now legislation has changed. 

[#6]

It's all just paperwork to keep the desk-jockeys busy in government, there should be no need to declare on a piece of paper if you love someone, but because the law is a type of donkey, you have to to gain certain legal statuses which of course means more paperwork, it's just utter nonsense...

[#7]

Has this taken over from what was commonly assumed to be "common law", but with the added security that wasn't given before?

[#8]

We did discuss so-called 'common law marriage' elsewhere on this forum once, and there is in fact no such thing in England.  You can live together, have children together etc. etc., and you are still single if you haven't got that piece of paper proving your relationship status.

[#9]

@Jonpe 

But that did not prevent a solution post seperation being found even if current policy worked against one or other of the parties. 

At one time in any separation married or not the children would always be given over to the mother. Back in the early 70s and even though I was divorced from my first wife, she was able to claim half the house even though it was in my name and had been bought by myself previously.  

Bad news yes, the good new was that we did not have any children to become bitter over.

Thankfully things have changed for the better but it was most certainly not a level playing field at the time but even so, best get things down on paper and properly endorsed. 

Common Law marriage might not have had the legal rights one sanctioned by state and Church but there was as I understand (or understood it) one created by precedence and much like our unwritten constitution.

I might not know what time it is, but I have it written down on a piece of a paper. 😂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctM_Rvgjfpo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

[#10]

@Minivanman, of course common law is an important principle in English jurisprudence.  If you watch cop shows, fictional or documentary, you've probably seen someone being arrested for murder at which point the arresting officer will include in their caution "... on suspicion of murder, contrary to common law."

Just to add to the points in your post, the dividing of pension rights is now an additional concern in divorces.

[#11]

I did know about those pension rights, and also a couple of guys that have had to suck sour grapes because of it.

It had always struck me as unfair that after a lifetime of marriage the guy (for it was often the guy) could walk away pension intact leaving the wife without two pennies to rub together after a lifetime of keeping house, home and children for their husbands.

All for the better now but like pensions, children and property it now works both ways and yes I know I mentioned property earlier - but we'd only been married for eighteen months. 😲

[#12]

Having been married for many years we did not do a prenup thing as we both had nowt so what we have would be shared equally...the thing about these prenups is it seems to me that you are saying you don’t trust someone enough and if that’s the case why bother with marriage or civil partnership just live together and each keep their own stuff.

Perhaps my attitude is based on my age but prenups do see odd to me.

[#13]

Depends, if you are person of wealth and property such an arrangement makes sense @gleneagles 

Imagine leaving all that you have to say your son for arguments sake, and without a prenuptial the wife who came in with nothing as my first one did, walks away after a short marriage with half of everything and perhaps more... and don't even get me started on the arguments we had over wedding presents! 😛

Not for the common man I grant you, but I doubt if the likes of Diana Princess of Wales saw even a smidgen of what two timing Charlie owned.

On the reverse, how many times have we learned about the scoundrel who even in law was entitled to all his new bride owned or had inherited from her family. At one time she would not even had rights over her own children.

For most of her marriage my sister had no claim over the house she raised her five children in and which had been in her French husband's family for over three hundred years. It's changed now, but she could have been left with sweet Fanny Adams.

On a positive note and unlike in this country as far as I know, her children could not be disinherited.

[#14]

Thank goodness the only property with a roof I own is my shed in the yard, if I ever had a relationship & she wanted it, she could have it... 🤣

[#15]

@twocvbloke 

But then where would you live? 😐