Open civil partnerships to all

Thank you, that does make the situation a little clearer. I can appreciate there are some who don't like the association that marriage has with the church and would therefore prefer to opt for a CP. I think in that case it would be much more sensible to do away with marriage altogether, leaving only Civil Partnership for everyone. The partnership could be followed by a church blessing if that was wanted, but the blessing would have no legal status in the way that marriage currently does. Sad to see the word marriage erased from our language, of course, but I really cannot see the point of continuing with both forms of legal union now that same sex marriage is allowed.

There is little legal difference. It is probably more about how they are perceived and I feel it is a case of equality. - don't sign if that is not important to you. You could do away with Civil partnerships, I suppose, but what about all those already in one? They seem to be popular with some people and in some circumstances. As it is worthwhile to the state for us to be in a legal partnership, be it Marriage or civil why not offer it to everyone.

If I was in a position where I was considering it I would prefer a Civil Partnership. I think you are right but I would want the CP left in place followed by a religious, marriage if chosen.

Is the dissolution of a Civil Partnership easier/quicker/ cheaper than divorce? Perhaps that's the difference.

I'm another who doesn't really understand the distinction between civil partnership and marriage. If CP offers the same legal security as marriage, then what is marriage for? I mean, what is different about it and why would people opt for CP over marriage? If CP was introduced because same sex couples were legally unable to marry, then surely it's no longer needed now that they can. So why don't we just do away with one or other institution and just have either CP or marriage.

Sorry, a bit rambling, but I genuinely don't understand the distinction.

Signed

Just thought I would bump this in case anyone else wants to sign.

Signed.

I think many people would go for a civil partnership instead of a second marriage. I also think many people just don't like the idea of marriage because it has been so tied into religion.

If we'd had the option, I'd have gone for a civil partnership rather than a marriage. I'd had one failed marriage and some negative feelings about the institution. Luckily, my 2nd marriage continues to be happy and all we could hope for (35 years in)

A civil partnership gives the partners the same legal security as marriage. That is, partners can act as next of kin, be involved in medical issues for their loved one and have the same pension rights as married people. People who have neither civil partnerships, nor marriage but who may have lived together in what is often called 'common law' have no rights at all. It's usually the women who suffer in these circumstances. They may have been in a committed relationship for 10 years or longer, have children and other responsibilities but find themselves homeless and penniless. That is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Signed and shared, thanks GGMk2.

Please don’t jump on me, I’m genuinely interested and ignorant.

I don’t really understand the argument. If the current marriage still treats women as unequal why did gay couples want the equality of marriage? I know the marriage certificate is out of date as it has no space for the mother’s name but I understood that’s being considered by the government. What is it about the current form of marriage that’s so terrible now? As I understood it, those not wanting to marry could put things on a legal footing to provide for all, or most, eventualities? What does a civil partnership do differently?

Now that we have same sex marriage, what is the point of civil partnerships? Could we not just stop them and say that all those in civil partnerships before the new legislation can automatically be treated in exactly the same way as a married couple?

A large number of people, in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, are happy to live together long term without any ceremony as they regard their committed loving relationship as good enough as it is. That includes many parents.

Those who want the legal status and public ceremony can get married. I think civil partnerships were a useful arrangement for those who could not marry at the time but now there is no need to continue with them.

Signed..

I have always felt it was unfair that same sex couples could not have a civil partnership.

✔️

It seems perfectly fair to have both forms open to everyone

It was in Northern Ireland annsixty. I don't really see why they shouldn't. Marriage is just a legal contract. If two people are dependant on one another they should be able to sign that contract.

It makes it even more perverse that civil partnerships are not available to opposite sex couples.

Signed, thanks for bringing the petition to my attention.

How will the tax avoidance work Ann? They leave their money to each other? They must be good friends!
I'm totally in favour of civil partnerships for everyone with legally binding commitments that both parties have discussed beforehand.
The marriage ceremony as an extra for those to whom it means something.

Thanks GrandmaMoira.

I have read today of two heterosexual men marrying to save on inheritance tax.
How far can /will things go?

I have signed. I do agree the current situation is unfair. A lot of people do not want marriage but would like the option of civil partnership.