Civil Relationships -v- Marriage

I too was asked to sign that petition but won't.
The reason given was that they opted not to marry as they'd both been married before and didn't want to do it again. Fair enough, but by choosing the relative 'freedom' of a civil partnership they also chose to miss out on the legal protection om marriage.
It's a choice not to marry..
My daughter went into a civil partnership but at the first opportunity they chose to marry.
If they want the protèction they should be prepared to make the commitment.

I don't understand this. Is the suggestion that anyone of any sex can have a civil partnership with no legal consequences when it breaks down. Any partnership needs dissolving with a share of assets etc .
I always thought civil partnerships were brought in for same sex partners to have some legal standing when they could not marry.

I thought the same as you annsixty. Life is bewildering!

I thought civil partnerships would disappear once marriage became all-encompassing. Apparently not. In my ignorance, I have no idea why this is seen as preferential to becoming legally married. I'm baffled too... I don't plan to sign because I'm pro-marriage and the choice is to opt in or not.

Irritates me, they want to change the law because they believe they don't need a marriage certificate to prove they are dedicated to commitment , just pop into local registry office , get married and shut up

Funny, how the legalization of gay marriage changes the whole conversation about civil relationships.

There definitely seems to be a contradiction in the pro-civil relationships argument, doesn't there? "We don't need to be married but we need the protection of marriage." Odd.

I haven't been asked to sign this petition (yet). But I don't sign online petitions, so I wouldn't do it, no matter.

I have no actual idea what the legal differences between civil partnership and marriage are. Does anyone on here know?

It might just be useful if someone could define these before the discussion continues.

I would be interested in the different legal position. We have lived together for 36 years. Both names are on our properties. We have separate and joint bank accounts. I would like to know how one of us could take more than their fair share if it all went south.

I've been unable to find anything via google that simply answers the question we're asking about the legal difference between civil partnership and marriage. I know a number of hetrosexual couples who would prefer to have a civil partnership than get married. The view is that its a less archaic and more equal service, better suited to life in 2016 than the marriage service. Gay friends have mostly stayed with their civil partnership, though two long standing couples I know were married last year, despite having already been in civil partnerships.

I think some of the key benefits of marriage link to money, property and inheritance tax.

Petra, I suggest you ask a lawyer the question about dividing your joint assets if "it all went south". It sounds as though you're secure because of joint ownership but I know a number of women left with very little when a relationship ends. A woman in her 30's with a child has found herself with no rights at all to financial support despite a 15 year relationship. Her name wasn't on the mortgage so despite the fact she'd contributed financially throughout the partnership, she has no rights to half the house which had she married, she would have. It's a bit of a minefield

One difference is that you can't have a civil partnership if you're of different genders. In that case, I agree with Anniebach, what's to stop them having a register office wedding? I know there's been a demand for civil partnerships to be made possible for family members, for example, who just want to secure next-of-kin rights.

In my opinion the main difference is that marriage is basically a religious ceremony, although it can also be done by a registrar. Many people do not have a religion and object to the historical link with the Church.

I live in France where couples have the choice to either marry or have a civil partnership. Both options provide protection to joint assets, children,
inheritance tax as well as joint liabilities. My partner and I have lived together for almost 25 years . We were both previously married and divorced and each have children from those marriages. Our civil partnership of 8 years has meant that we can arrange inheritance for each other and our respective children fairly without tax penalties as well as underlining our commitment to each other. However, this legal partnership it is not recognised in the UK.
In the UK heterosexual couples can only opt for marriage if they wish to make a public declaration of their commitment and have the advantages of financial protection for each other, inheritance and property rights, next of kin status etc. Whilst unmarried couples can arrange protection of property and finance for each other through the making of Wills, currently not all pensions and benefits are transferable unless they are married. These issues matter irrespective of whether it is a couple with young children where one partner leaves or dies or an older couple who have lived together for decades. In the event that we return to live in the UK, I would want to have the choice of a civil partnership as marriage is not in my experience any indicator of longevity or quality of a relationship and I will therefore be signing the petition.

Perhaps I can assist and dispel some misconceptions. Civil Partnerships were introduced to give legal recognition to same sex relationships.

Petra; I hope you do not believe you are "common law" husband and wife just because you have a long standing relationship? There is no such thing. When you say both names are on your properties do you own them as joint tenants or tenants in common? If you own them jointly they pass to the survivor automatically on first death, even if your Will says something else. If you are tenants in common you each own a share of the property (usually but not necessarily 50:50) and can dispose of your share as you see fit, perhaps to your own children if this is a second or subsequent relationship). If "it all went south" the court might be asked to decide what are fair or "equitable" division of assets should be if one party had contributed a lot more than the other, in terms of cash or other inputs (which is what Iam64 refers to).

Some people object to the religious connotations of even a civil marriage and want to be able to have a civil partnership (although the LBGT community campaigned to be able to get married because they felt a civil partnership wasn't the same as a marriage). You cannot please all of the people all of the time!

Two unmarried sisters wanted to be able to form a civil partnership, because they obviously couldn't get married but wanted to claim the transferable nil rate band for inheritance tax. The case went to the European Court of Human Rights and failed there too.

Iaincam your post is very helpful. I would like to add that there are many reasons: religious, historical, political, personal, practical why some couples prefer/choose not to marry. I have now signed the petition. In doing so, I am seeking equal rights to same sex couples to choose the legal basis of their relationship.

I am in a civil partnership but have no desire to be married. This is for a few reasons the main one being that a civil partnership gives me all I need.
Although an atheist I can see why Christians would object if they believe that marriage is for the procreation of children. I also know that children are not restricted to heterosexuals. I also think civil partnerships should be available to all, straight or gay.

I agree that civil partnerships should be available to all couples. I was married 33 years ago but would have preferred a civil partnership at that time, had it been available.

This particular petition is about giving UK heterosexual couples the right to enter into civil partnerships - they can't at the moment. In the UK we already have the ability to marriage without religious involvement - I got married at a register office and our choice of music was carefully checked against religious content so the church -v- civil element is already there. I've never been to a civil partnership event (sorry, not sure if it's correct to call it a service?) but thought it was as close to a marriage as a gay couple could get at the time so what is the difference? I still don't understand what the difference is unless a planned version for all couples really is only signing a document in private in front of a lawyer. Can't that be done for legal protection purposes anyway?

A register office marriage is still a marriage , even though it has no religious connections. Some heterosexual couples do not agree with the historical or political connotations of marriage , even if they are very much committed to each other. Why should these couples be denied the same choice as homosexual couples. I'd sign the petition if I knew where it was!!!

That's the point put simply Atqui - thanks for that.

Two questions: are civil partnerships for gays still available? If so, then from the point of equality shouldn't all couples should be able to enter into such arrangements?

But before I decide to sign, what is it exactly about the CP 'service' (sorry, still don't know what the correct term is) that differs so much from a civil marriage? If it bestows the same legal responsibilities on the couple and isn't religious in content isn't it just marriage by another name?

I can answer your first question Mollie, which is that civil partnerships and marriage are options for same sex couples in the UK.

I can't answer your second question as my experience of a civil partnership ceremony is in France where there is such equality.

It's all rather confusing. I think it would be a good idea just to have one single kind of legal partnership (whether for gay or straight unions). It could have a dual name, such as "Legal Partnership/Marriage" and could be entered into by signing a document as Civil Partnership is now. The two individuals in the union could decide for themselves whether they wanted to call it a Legal Partnership or a Marriage. Those who want to add a public ceremony with vows, whether religious or secular, could choose to do so, and those who don't need not bother. What does anyone else think?

I would have thought civil partnerships were redundant now that same sex marriage is allowed. Why would anyone not go the whole hog? It would be like saying, "I'm only with him/her for the sex. There is no love involved". Won't civil partnerships just quietly die a death now?

Atqui's post at 18.35 gives information about why some heterosexual couples would prefer a CP to marriage