Hetro couples to be allowed Civil Partnerships

[Cold]

"The court said the Civil Partnership Act 2004 - which only applies to same-sex couples - is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44627990

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Seems entirely sensible to me.

Frankly, the Civil Partnership legislation should have been amended at the same time as Marriage Equality was.

I see it as a legislative oversight that should be rectified forthwith, rather than a deliberate attempt to exclude heterosexual couples from having a Civil Partnership. I can't see any sane justification for not doing so.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

It's worth noting that Civil Partnerships were only created to give homosexual couples something akin to marriage without upsetting the bigots who didn't want "teh gayz" to be allowed into the marriage club.

[Eric Mc]

Unintended consequences strike again.

[KingNothing]

Why didn't they just stop offering civil partnerships when they changed the marriage laws?

[The Surveyor]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

It's worth noting that Civil Partnerships were only created to give homosexual couples something akin to marriage without upsetting the bigots who didn't want "teh gayz" to be allowed into the marriage club.

and you were doing so well.....

[The Surveyor]

KingNothing said:

Why didn't they just stop offering civil partnerships when they changed the marriage laws?

There is nothing wrong with offering all the options provided they are open to all IMHO

[Clockwork Cupcake]

KingNothing said:

Why didn't they just stop offering civil partnerships when they changed the marriage laws?

Because by then there were couples in Civil Partnerships. You can't just say "we're abolishing these and will convert your Civil Partnership into a Marriage" because some of those couples could, quite justifiably, say "we don't want to call what we have a 'Marriage' - we like that it is a called a 'Civil Partnership'".

(Edit: Sorry, I misread. You meant stop offering Civil Partnerships, rather than cancelling existing ones. Ok, but my point sort-of still stands)

The Surveyor said:

There is nothing wrong with offering all the options provided they are open to all IMHO

I totally agree.

(Which, incidentally, was what Marriage Equality was all about in the first place)

[catso]

Very much a first world problem, did it really need "solving"?

[Jockman]

catso said:

Very much a first world problem, did it really need "solving"?

Yes, I believe so.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I've been to a gay civil partnership ceremony and is was basically just the same as my register office marriage, but with 2 guys. What will be the difference between a hetero civil partnership and a register office marriage?

[PAULJ5555]

catso said:

Very much a first world problem, did it really need "solving"?

There are lots of messy legal issues and families fighting when someone passes away without a will/marrage.

[catso]

PAULJ5555 said:

There are lots of messy legal issues and families fighting when someone passes away without a will/marrage.

Then why not just get a will/marriage?

[jonny996]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

What will be the difference between a hetero civil partnership and a register office marriage?

good question.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

catso said:

Then why not just get a will/marriage?

Does it really matter?

It's not really any of our business as to why they want a Civil Partnership rather than a Marriage. The fact is that currently there is a legal oversight in eligibility for a Civil Partnership.

What's the big deal?

[anonymous-user]

From a legal standpoint, does a civil partnership give the parties the same rights as a marriage?

[Jockman]

jonny996 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

What will be the difference between a hetero civil partnership and a register office marriage?

good question.

I’m assuming it will be the same difference as that between a same sex civil partnership and a register office marriage.

[catso]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

catso said:

Then why not just get a will/marriage?

Does it really matter?

It's not really any of our business as to why they want a Civil Partnership rather than a Marriage. The fact is that currently there is a legal oversight in eligibility for a Civil Partnership.

What's the big deal?

Indeed it does not matter, which is why I see it as a pointless exercise.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

garyhun said:

From a legal standpoint, does a civil partnership give the parties the same rights as a marriage?

Well, that's how they were sold to homosexual couples.

"We're not going to allow you to get married, but you can have a Civil Partnership which is exactly the same only it won't be called marriage"

Does a rose by any other name smell as sweet? Who knows.

Maybe the people objecting to it fear that it will cheapen the sanctity of Civil Partnership? "It's Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve!"

[Clockwork Cupcake]

catso said:

Indeed it does not matter, which is why I see it as a pointless exercise.

But it clearly matters to them.

I can totally see where they are coming from, incidentally. The word "marriage" has a lot of baggage (which is incidentally why the gay community lobbied to hard for Marriage Equality, as some couples *want* that baggage) so I can conversely see why some heterosexual couples *don't* want that baggage.