Couples make history in first mixed-sex civil partnerships

Ps I do not disagree with this and feel that everyone now has equality; I just do not understand the objections to marriage on the grounds of o-called patriarchy.

What will dissolving a civil partnership be called I wonder?

Conscious uncoupling perhaps?

According to The Times there is a formal dissolution process and adultery is not a valid reason , though it can be used as evidence in divorce. Also re patriarchy , both partners in marriage have to put their fathers name on the certificate. In CP it’s both parents. As far as I’m concerned marriage has moved on, but I can appreciate that many couples feel strongly about about it and am pleased that there is now equality with gay couples who insisted that CP was not the same as marriage.

I never liked the patriarchal aspects of marriage either. I hated being called Mrs DH's first name + DH's Surname. I returned from honeymoon to discover that my interest paying staff account at the bank where I worked had been closed and a new joint account opened in name of my new DH and anr. (another).They also automatically put me on the Married Women's NI contributions, which has even now reduced my OAP. Also that I was now considered temporary staff and removed from the pension scheme, did not get any annual bonus. A few years later, when we wanted to buy a house, I was not eligible for a staff mortgage and we instead had to take one at 11.5% instead of the staff rate of 4%.

Same thing happened with our mortgage, taken out in joint names, and the one bit of HP that we had to buy a car. When
I later tried to get a credit card, I was told I had no credit rating, while my OH had a good one because these payments were only credited to his record. I was forced to be only the second signatory on his card. Same with the car insurance. When he was no longer able to drive, I was treated as a 70+ new driver with no 'no claims bonus' though I had been driving, accident free for 40 years.

I do realise that things have changed over the past 50 years but still feel that we would have been better off if we had remained unmarried.

Each to their own . I understand that there are remnants of a patriarchal system inherent in marriage but it seems a bit of an odd thing to pin a reluctance to marry on - there are many patriarchal associations such as voting or education or owning property, but I’m not aware of any woman eschewing those things because of their patriarchal history. Marriage is an equal contract between two people that varies in form - there is no single ‘institution’, despite what those opposed to it might claim.

It will be interesting to see what happens in partnerships where the man (and it usually seems to be the man) doesn’t want to get married because it’s ‘just’ a piece of paper (as are mortgage deeds, pension rights etc) with this alternative option - but I know it tidies things up legally without having to seek expensive legal advice.

It had to happen, you have to have the same laws and opportunities for all.
Gay people had to have a civil union, but then the law changed so that they could marry if they preferred.
Mixed sex couples could always marry but some wanted a civil union. Now everybody has a choice.

We got married, as I think most folk do, because we both believed we would both be happier together than apart. What is wrong with that?

Monica, Making a legal partnership is exactly what a civil partnership is

Sorry Atqui I did not make myself clear. I am aware that Civil Partnership is legal. I was trying to make the point that the simplest way to sort this out is to make the civil partnership, the only legal way of registering a partnership, ie, meld civil registration of marriage and CP into one. All couples wishing to enter a partnership and have the rights and obligations this bestows in law, must go to a Registery Office and register it, no ceremony, just forms filled in and signed.

Any further celebration or ceremony of commitment by the partnership, whether religious, or in any other way, is then entirely up to the registered couple.

It would be no different to the way the birth of a child is legally registered and the parents then sometimes choose to have the child baptised, or to have their own naming celebration. It is the same with death. A death is registered and then you dispose of the body with or without a ceremony as you think fit.

Why should partnership registration be any different?

We were quite surprised (and pleased) to learn today that one of our children and partner are planning to get married, not enter into a civil partnership, although they could. They have been together for twenty-five years.

In France, and many other countries you have to have a civil ceremony first, then it’s up to you whether to have a “wedding” in church or hotel or wherever. This seems to make more sense than having two very similar institutions which are more or less the same.

lemongrove
It had to happen, you have to have the same laws and opportunities for all.
Gay people had to have a civil union, but then the law changed so that they could marry if they preferred.
Mixed sex couples could always marry but some wanted a civil union. Now everybody has a choice

Exactly.

I did wonder if civil partnerships would be abolished once gay marriage was legalized, but as it wasn't/ until it is, this had to happen, and although I am uncertain of the legal differences between the two, I have no objections to both options being available.

I know I'm not the top brick off the chimney but can someone tell me (simply please!) the difference between opposite sex civil ceremony and registry office marriage?

Um, um

It's just

Um

Nope....no idea what's the difference. In my book either one wants to make a public and official commitment to someone....or one does not.

Not a huge amount of difference. You don’t say “you are married”. I think it will help move things to a more equal footing. I despise getting things addressed to Mrs Husbands Name. It. Has happened a couple of times that my husband has been addressed as Mr My Surname and he has hit the roof. We both kept our own names after marriage. I hate that people assume things when you say you are married. “The wife” has a negative tone. No one says “the husband”. Women are still expected to change their name to Mrs whereas men go by Mr so no one knows if they are married or not. Taking the husbands name - why? Why does the man not take his wife’s name? Legally you can do either or have a new name. Same with kids. There is no legal requirement to give them his name. I hope in 100 years there is more equality!

Hopefully the publicity about this will also serve to debunk the myth of "common law" rights (in UK: No such thing. Still not everyone knows this)

I agree notanan - and I hope that more women who have children and joint mortgages with the man they cohabit with will insist on this in order to protect themselves. MN is full of women who find themselves in really precarious positions because their boyfriend doesn’t want to marry them, with all sorts of excuses given as to why he thinks it’s ok not be linked in a legal framework despite having children together. This ties things up legally without the need for a wedding (even though that wedding can be a simple registry office affair with two witnesses, it still seems to put many men off - for some reason )

Exactly! So many women and children financially up the creek after trusting a life partner