Civil Relationships -v- Marriage

article here about the couple who have gone to law I can see their point from a 'it's not fair' point of view, but I think the neighbours will whisper people will ask, why?

Ah yes. I can see that difference now. A civil partnership puts everything on the same legal footing as marriage, but no vows are exchange.

Perhaps some people want an 'open' civil partnership. (Like an open marriage) (slight )

Thanks Iaincam.

There is currently a hearing in the High Court where a couple are arguing that section 1 of the Civil Partnerships Act 2014 is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 because it discriminates against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Written submissions and argument are expected to last two days, the judgment will take longer to be published. I will keep an eye on the Law Reports.

Are there not differences in the legal basis and content of a CP and marriage in a Registry Office? So, a CP is formed when both partners have signed the Civil Partnership schedule. A civil marriage is formed when the couple have exchanged declaratory vows.

But the points being made from several contributors to this discussion are that a wedding in a civil registry office is still a marriage. Since 2015, a same sex couple can choose how to formally legalise their relationship, either through a civi partnership or marriage. An opposite sex couple do not have such a choice. Marriage or nothing.

There is no difference!

So, what exactly is the difference between a Registry Office Marriage and entering into a Civil Partnership? Anyone know? Because I'm totally

to Seasidenana; you can protect your property by creating a trust during lifetime or in your Will, but only if it is your name. If in the future you buy property jointly with someone else make sure it is done as tenants in common (with each share reflecting how much each of you contributed) NOT as joint tenants.

The terms of the trust can allow your partner to remain in the property for a fixed period (to allow them to find somewhere else to live), or for life or until they decide to move anyway, but your share or interest will eventually pass to your kids.

I agree Sadiesnan, but the point of the OP is that gay couples have a choice between a marriage and a CP and heterosexual couples don't. It seems that the majority of married couples 'can't see what all the fuss is about- marriage is no longer a patriarchal institution ' , but if some people have strong views and principles about marriage why should they be denied a CP.?If there were no difference between marriage and CP why where gay people given the right to marry? ( I'm not against that BTW , but would like to see equality). Probably repeated myself here so I'll shut up now!

What other people want is fine by me. I don't feel it's up to me to say what's right for others.

Here in tabular form from HMG, the differences and similarities.

NB An ended CP needs to have a divorce/dissolution, you can't just walk off.

If I was getting hetero-married these days, I would want a CP. My ideal scheme would be for everyone to have a civil partnership which gives identical financial etc rights to all, then add in a religious or other blessing of choice - this is the system in many other countries.

Searching for 'civil partnership vs marriage' brings up thousands of hits, it's not hard to find.

There are many different types of relationship. I was in a committed marriage for 30 years, but since that ended (his decision) I have no wish for that type of relationship again. I have learned that no matter how much you thought this was forever, the other person may change their feelings, even after a very long time. If ever I decided to live with someone again, I would want legal protection for my property, but would not want to make promises which may later be broken. I would be in favour of some kind of legal protection so that my kids would inherit my share of any property.

Thank you iaincam

In reply to Anniebach; if one has made a will appointing executors they have a right to dispose of the body. It is generally agreed they should "have regard to any expression of wishes made by the deceased, but are not bound by them" (Buchanan v Milton [199]). I usually explain to Will clients that executors cannot be bound by funeral wishes because a) the Will may not be found until after the funeral has taken place and, b) they will be in no position to sue!

If there is no Will there is a hierarchy of who can take possession of the body; persons with parental responsibility for a deceased minor child, then a surviving spouse or civil partner (but NOT a "common law" husband or wife), then children (or their issue if predeceased), then parents, then siblings, then remoter relatives.

If there is a medical reason for it, a householder (or hospital) can dispose of any body on their premises, subject to the claims of those above. If there is a dispute about who has first claim, the person with possession of the body can make arrangements.

If no one claims the body the local authority has to dispose of it.

Having worked abroad for the last twenty years we found it necessary to get legally married in order to get spouse visas in various countries. This was the main reason for marriage for us and I know a number of couples, of various nationalities, for whom this is also true. Would a CP have the same legal standing for this purpose? Depends on the legislation of the country one is proposing to work in I think.

I don't know why anyone thinks it has to be a religious thing either. Register office weddings have been available for generations. My grandparents married in a register office and only told his parents after the deed (that didn't go down too well)

You can decide for yourself what form you want the ceremony to take, what you promise to one another, who will be there, what you wear. The only obligation is to give truthful information and sign your name. You don't even have to change that name. If you are committed enough to want to make it a formal contract, why balk at a marriage?

Does a partner have the same rights as a spouse ? If a partner dies is choice of disposal of the body the right of the partner or blood relatives?

I really don't understand why anyone still thinks marriage is a symbol of male dominance . There is a churchyard on the Welsh English border and a few very old grave stones have the woman's name and chattel of not wife of , do women in 2016 still think like this

I would be surprised if a judicial review achieved anything or would even be given permission to proceed; a) they have to be brought within 3 months of the original decision, and b) while an action for JR can be brought against a government body or department, it cannot be brought against a superior court or parliament. As I said in an earlier post I think this has already been to the ECHR in Strasbourg.

It would require another Act of Parliament to revise the 2004 Act.

Yes, thanks Lavande, clear and helpful explanation

That's a good explanation Lavande.

As I understand it, the current application is for a judicial review of the existing Civil Partnership Act 2004.

The Act was controversial at the time of its implementation not only because it was the outcome of a successful hard fought for fight for the rights of same sex couples but because it excluded opposite sex couples.

It has ever since raised questions by lawyers, politicians and campaigners that the current policy contravenes UK equality legislation. This campaign is therefore about extending the existing legislation to include opposite sex couples. However one looks at this, opposite sex couples who want to live together and do not want to marry, are discriminated against. They do not qualify, for example, inheritance tax and pension benefits, next of kin status as enjoyed by same sex couples in a civil partnership.
These are legal matters which cannot simply be resolved for a couple by a lawyer or through the making of detailed Wills when it is not underpinned by legislation.

I'm having a John McEnroe moment!!

I accept that historically marriage was about handing over a blushing virgin who became her husband's property. Historically it was about cementing connections with others by the giving of a daughter through marriage. But there's nothing left in that these days. I doubt many brides are virgins nor actually given to cement any family connections or obligations. And there's no obligation for a woman to take her husband's name, she can keep her own. You can have a register office ceremony without any religious connotation but I suppose you are pronounced 'man and wife'. When I remarried no one gave me away, I wasn't going to give my OH an heir (not at my age!) and I wasn't a virgin (blush!) nor did I wear white. We arrived together, made our declarations and left. Being old fashioned and preferring his name, I did change my name on marriage but I didn't have to. So, it seems to me that the act of modern marriage is all about the attitude of the couple involved rather than what it meant historically. Just as some may want to make a song and dance about it, others can make it as uneventful and as businesslike as they choose. Can't the same legal safeguards be arranged by a lawyer rather than a fussy change of law?

....and thanks for your endorsement Iam64. I feel very strongly about the inequality of this .

Thanks Atqui.