Opposite Sex Civil Partnership Question
Discussion
eccles said:
Why can't there be some sort of simple legal contract that recognises a legal partnership between two people? One that is simple to enter into,and simple to come out of.
Because once you get into couple committing to each other and making contributions (e.g. mortgage) and commitments/sacrifices (e.g. children) a "simple" contract is never going to protect parties. Hence we have marriage and the courts to interpret, rule and protect parties?
In the bus crash the OP has outlined a lot of State services, not just HMRC, would not recognise his girlfriend as his first next of kin. He would probably find the NHS may well not listen to her (depsite any living will) on his treatment, turning life support off or organ donation. ICU is not the place to find her views on these topics do not align to those of his parents. He may well find schools equally challenging when it comes to discussions about the child, hell I even had to write formally to the head to request they included me in comms about the children once I was divorced.
OP, what ever your reasons for not doing a traditional ceremony yet if you want to secure your rights that a full blown marriage would give you without a full blown marriage I think you need a registry office ceremony. However you're asking the internet and in BV's absence the rest of us are reknown for our accurate knowledge of the law. I'd make an appointment to see your local council's regsitrar and ask them what your options are.
OP, what ever your reasons for not doing a traditional ceremony yet if you want to secure your rights that a full blown marriage would give you without a full blown marriage I think you need a registry office ceremony. However you're asking the internet and in BV's absence the rest of us are reknown for our accurate knowledge of the law. I'd make an appointment to see your local council's regsitrar and ask them what your options are.
PurpleMoonlight said:
If same sex couples can have a marriage or a civil partnership, aren't opposite sex couples being discriminated against because they can't have a civil partnership?
There is an arguable case under article 14, and a judicial review is coming up this month on this subject, launched by a different sex couple that were refused a civil partnership by the local registry office.If they succeed and the ban is declared in conflict with the HRA / ECHR then the government would still have the option to legislate to stop new civil partnerships entirely to resolve the conflict, rather than extending them to different sex couples.
Despite the fact that a registry office marriage ceremony is entirely secular, the "institution" of marriage still has a weight of religious connotations associated with it in the minds of some, which some don't want. So I entirely understand why the OP might not wish to marry but might wish to enter a legal union which isn't called "marriage", and given that such a union already exists for a section of the population, extending it to the whole of the population doesn't see a huge stretch.
In response to some posts on here, I will give my reason for not wishing to get married.
My understanding is that even registry office vows mean the couple promise to stay together "until death us do part". I honestly dont feel able to make that promise. I am fully committed to my partner and couldnt imagine life without her. Will I still feel the same in 20 years? 30 years? I really dont know and I am unsure how others can consider their feelings will never change.
Thousands of divorces each year, to people who have promised to stay together "for better, for worse" and subsequently breaking their vows. Clearly they only really meant their vows to last as long as they felt the same way.
Perhaps its an unusual view to have these days, but for me, marriage is for life, with no get out if things go awry. Its what I would be promising on the big day.
My solution is obviously not to get married, however I do feel a civil partnership is something I would enter into and yet I am prevented.
My understanding is that even registry office vows mean the couple promise to stay together "until death us do part". I honestly dont feel able to make that promise. I am fully committed to my partner and couldnt imagine life without her. Will I still feel the same in 20 years? 30 years? I really dont know and I am unsure how others can consider their feelings will never change.
Thousands of divorces each year, to people who have promised to stay together "for better, for worse" and subsequently breaking their vows. Clearly they only really meant their vows to last as long as they felt the same way.
Perhaps its an unusual view to have these days, but for me, marriage is for life, with no get out if things go awry. Its what I would be promising on the big day.
My solution is obviously not to get married, however I do feel a civil partnership is something I would enter into and yet I am prevented.
mudster said:
In response to some posts on here, I will give my reason for not wishing to get married.
My understanding is that even registry office vows mean the couple promise to stay together "until death us do part". I honestly dont feel able to make that promise. I am fully committed to my partner and couldnt imagine life without her. Will I still feel the same in 20 years? 30 years? I really dont know and I am unsure how others can consider their feelings will never change.
Thousands of divorces each year, to people who have promised to stay together "for better, for worse" and subsequently breaking their vows. Clearly they only really meant their vows to last as long as they felt the same way.
Perhaps its an unusual view to have these days, but for me, marriage is for life, with no get out if things go awry. Its what I would be promising on the big day.
My solution is obviously not to get married, however I do feel a civil partnership is something I would enter into and yet I am prevented.
My understanding is that even registry office vows mean the couple promise to stay together "until death us do part". I honestly dont feel able to make that promise. I am fully committed to my partner and couldnt imagine life without her. Will I still feel the same in 20 years? 30 years? I really dont know and I am unsure how others can consider their feelings will never change.
Thousands of divorces each year, to people who have promised to stay together "for better, for worse" and subsequently breaking their vows. Clearly they only really meant their vows to last as long as they felt the same way.
Perhaps its an unusual view to have these days, but for me, marriage is for life, with no get out if things go awry. Its what I would be promising on the big day.
My solution is obviously not to get married, however I do feel a civil partnership is something I would enter into and yet I am prevented.
I'm happy to let you know that you are incorrect. You are mixing up church ceremony with register. You can personalise register office vows as you wish proving they contain the contractual statements below. There really is a lot of latitude on top of this.
In England and Wales the statutory declaration is:
“I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, may not be joined in matrimony to .”
It is followed by these contracting words:
“I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, do take thee, , to be my lawful wedded husband/wife.”
There are also two legal alternative declarations:
“I know of no legal reason why I, , may not be joined in marriage to .”
Or by replying “I am” to the question: “Are you, free lawfully to marry?”
These are followed by the contract:
“I, , take you, to be my wedded wife/husband.”
Or
“I, take thee, to be my wedded wife/husband.”
In Scotland the couple say:
“I solemnly declare that I know of no legal impediment why I, , may not be joined in matrimony to. I accept.”
In Northern Ireland the statutory declaration is:
“I know of no lawful impediment why I, , may not be joined in matrimony to, , to be my lawful wedded husband/wife.”
I am really confused with what people want.
If you want all the benefits of marriage in a simple contract without getting married then what is marriage going to offer over this simple contract. Am I missing something?
And if you don't want to get married because you don't want to commit for life, then don't get married. Why does there need to be a requirement for a middle ground? I remember someone once telling me when their third child was born that they do not want the commitment of marriage with the mother. However a child (let alone 3) is a much bigger commitment to a person than marriage. I still have to deal with my ex husband because of our son.
I am very happily co habiting with someone with no legal status other than joint owners of a house and a mortgage (and I pay half before all of you men think I am being parasitic) but we will get married someday because we want to avoid Inheritance Tax and I want legal status of Next of Kin in the event of it being required. Not because we want to declare our commitment to each other, don't feel the need to make a big deal out of it.
And we want a party..... (the delay is because we need a new kitchen and therefore no money for a party yet)
If you want all the benefits of marriage in a simple contract without getting married then what is marriage going to offer over this simple contract. Am I missing something?
And if you don't want to get married because you don't want to commit for life, then don't get married. Why does there need to be a requirement for a middle ground? I remember someone once telling me when their third child was born that they do not want the commitment of marriage with the mother. However a child (let alone 3) is a much bigger commitment to a person than marriage. I still have to deal with my ex husband because of our son.
I am very happily co habiting with someone with no legal status other than joint owners of a house and a mortgage (and I pay half before all of you men think I am being parasitic) but we will get married someday because we want to avoid Inheritance Tax and I want legal status of Next of Kin in the event of it being required. Not because we want to declare our commitment to each other, don't feel the need to make a big deal out of it.
And we want a party..... (the delay is because we need a new kitchen and therefore no money for a party yet)
Kateg28 said:
...we will get married someday because we want to avoid Inheritance Tax and I want legal status of Next of Kin in the event of it being required. Not because we want to declare our commitment to each other, don't feel the need to make a big deal out of it.
It would seem Next of Kin has no legal definition in the UK except under the Mental Health Act.http://blogs.findlaw.co.uk/uncategorized/2011/07/f...
If IHT is one of your motivations then delaying it could prove costly.
It only needs the unforeseen/unexpected to suddenly occur one day.
e.g. one of you being permanently taken out of circulation by a drunk driver.
Been a very long time since our paths crossed. How is the Mk1 SC btw.
Kateg28 said:
I am very happily co habiting with someone with no legal status other than joint owners of a house and a mortgage (and I pay half before all of you men think I am being parasitic) but we will get married someday because we want to avoid Inheritance Tax and I want legal status of Next of Kin in the event of it being required. Not because we want to declare our commitment to each other, don't feel the need to make a big deal out of it.
And we want a party
This is basically my situation, the only difference being that I want to avoid IHT now without having to wait to get married like you. Not sure why that's so difficult to understand. It may be trying to have our cake and eat it, but I just wanted to investigate the possibilityAnd we want a party
Found this on the BBC so thought I'd post it here for reference on this topic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35352629
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35352629
Mario149 said:
Found this on the BBC so thought I'd post it here for reference on this topic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35352629
I came here to post this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35352629
Mario149 said:
Found this on the BBC so thought I'd post it here for reference on this topic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35352629
Saw this in the news this morning and it left me wondering, why?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35352629
catso said:
Saw this in the news this morning and it left me wondering, why?
The OP keeps saying IHT - if he owns property, and the other half is also an owner, as joint tenants, then those properties are outside his estate anyway should he die.If he leaves everything to his wife, then it's not IHT-free, it's just that she then gets his allowance on her death.
Civil partnerships were just a half-arsed halfway to marriage for same-sex couples. Now same-sex marriages exist (and not before time), civil partnerships are pointless and should be got shot of for everybody, not extended to mixed-sex couples... Marriage, and a wedding, have as much meaning to those in it as they want to put on it, and that's irrelevant to anybody else.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Tuesday 19th January 20:26
TooMany2cvs said:
Marriage, and a wedding, have as much meaning to those in it as they want to put on it, and that's irrelevant to anybody else.
That's what I was thinking, unless there is some 'advantage' of a civil ceremony? then the couple on TV this morning just struck me as professional 'victims' looking for a way to be offended...TooMany2cvs said:
The OP keeps saying IHT - if he owns property, and the other half is also an owner, as joint tenants, then those properties are outside his estate anyway should he die.
They're outside the estate in the sense that they automatically pass to the other joint tenant should the OP die, regardless of his will or lack of it, but the transfer of the OP's share is still subject to inheritance tax. See here. said:
Joint tenants
The owners own the whole of the property together and each is deemed to have an equal share. On first death, the deceased’s interest passes automatically to the survivor and cannot be bequeathed under the deceased’s will. For IHT purposes, there will be a transfer of value of half the value of the property although if the couple are married or in a civil partnership, this transfer will be exempt.
The owners own the whole of the property together and each is deemed to have an equal share. On first death, the deceased’s interest passes automatically to the survivor and cannot be bequeathed under the deceased’s will. For IHT purposes, there will be a transfer of value of half the value of the property although if the couple are married or in a civil partnership, this transfer will be exempt.
TooMany2cvs said:
If he leaves everything to his wife, then it's not IHT-free, it's just that she then gets his allowance on her death.
A bequest to a spouse (or a civil partner) is indeed IHT-free, which is the crucial point. (If the spouse subsequently dies and the money/house/whatever is then left to someone else that's a second bequest which is subject to IHT, which is where the shared allowance comes into play.) If you have >£325K in assets which you want to make sure your girlfriend gets if you fall under a bus then that's a pretty good reason for getting married - if you don't she'll have to share it with the taxman. TooMany2cvs said:
Civil partnerships were just a half-arsed halfway to marriage for same-sex couples. Now same-sex marriages exist (and not before time), civil partnerships are pointless and should be got shot of for everybody, not extended to mixed-sex couples... Marriage, and a wedding, have as much meaning to those in it as they want to put on it, and that's irrelevant to anybody else.
This part I agree with - civil partnerships were essentially a piece of legal fiction - a way of extending all the rights (and responsibilities) of marriage to gay couples without getting too much ire from social conservatives by actually using the word "marriage". Now that marriage has been extended to same sex couples there's no obvious reason why civil partnerships need to be retained at all IMO.Edited by Aretnap on Wednesday 20th January 11:16
Vaud said:
Would widows pensions also be an issue?
Also are death in service benefits from employers only paid to spouse - or is it any named partner?
In all the pensions I've been a member, death in service benefits go to whoever you want.Also are death in service benefits from employers only paid to spouse - or is it any named partner?
They are designed to be flexible as people's circumstances change as their life changes. In the past my mother, brother and partner have been nominated.
uknick said:
In all the pensions I've been a member, death in service benefits go to whoever you want.
They are designed to be flexible as people's circumstances change as their life changes. In the past my mother, brother and partner have been nominated.
It looks like some of the issues were removed in 2013.They are designed to be flexible as people's circumstances change as their life changes. In the past my mother, brother and partner have been nominated.
Here is a comprehensive guide to the differences:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/li...
and a Government document that is from late 2013:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Relevant:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845
Still don't really understand why it's such a big deal to get married, it doesn't have to be a lavish ceremony, you don't have to be religious, it can mean as much or as little as you want.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845
Still don't really understand why it's such a big deal to get married, it doesn't have to be a lavish ceremony, you don't have to be religious, it can mean as much or as little as you want.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff