Civil Relationships -v- Marriage

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.

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

There is no difference!

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 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.

Thanks Iaincam.

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 )

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?

I could be over thinking this. Or they are.

So where does a CP take place

Not for us- happily married for nearly 45 years. but what is wrong with giving people the choice? Why is it 'irritating you' or upsetting you. Live and let live, you say? And respect for others. Why should choice be a problem to anyone?

Ninathenana, I believe that a civil partnership in the UK can be registered at broadly the same venues as a civil marriage. Here in France, as a heterosexual couple, our CP was registered at what would be the equivalent of a County Court. We celebrated elsewhere afterwards.

As Lavande says, a CP must take place in suitably licensed premises, basically anywhere you could get married and the ceremony is conducted by someone licensed to carry out marriages!

The arguments in the case currently being considered by Mrs Justice Andrews seem to turn on whether denying heterosexual couples the ability to register a civil partnership is "outside the ambit" of Art 8 HRA 1998 because it does not have sufficient impact on their right to family life.
I can see the force of that argument, because a successful challenge could lead to other ones, such as unmarried sisters wanting a CP to benefit from the inheritance tax spousal exemption. They could try to argue if one sister left her half in a big house to the other, she might have to sell the house to pay the tax and that her infringed Art.8 rights (and probably Art.14 anti-discrimination), although difficult to argue the right to a family life with someone who has died?
The judge is taking time to consider her judgment, understandably.

Judgment has just been handed down in the High Court case of Steinfield v Sec of State for Education [2016] EWHC 128 and it failed at the first hurdle. Counsel for the applicant had to agree there "is no substantial difference between civil marriage (CM) and civil partnerships (CP) in terms of the legal rights and responsibilities created".

Just because same sex couples have two methods of creating a legal relationship it does not mean heterosexual couples are discriminated against because they only have one method, the judge found "no obvious disadvantage" and there would be an unnecessary expenditure of large amounts of tax payers money (and Parliamentary time and effort) in changing the law.

As a lawyer I agree there is no "need" to change the law.

Well then, I agree with Mr Bumble!

Oh well. Win some lose some. Sigh.

I think any "difference" between CM and CP is more in the social range - people think of those in a CM as "married," but not those who have a CP. The "legal rights and responsibilities" are, apparently, the same, as mentioned above. It's just the way people look at the 2 situations that's different, IMO.

For heterosexual couples, why not just have a simple, no fuss registry office wedding. If same sex couples can get married in a registry office I cannot see why they should have special rights of a civil partnership. If marriage doesn't suit, go to a solicitor to sort out a will that respects your wishes.

While everyone should make a Will (says a solicitor!) that in itself does not bring the inheritance tax advantages of a CM or CP. If you want those benefits you can obtain them for less than £100 by forming a legal relationship.

What I don't understand is why you need both when you can marry in a Registry Office, just quietlly, no fuss. Needn't wear a ring or change your name if you don't want to, just a formality if that's what you want, no one need know, just your solicitor.

Luckylegs , there are several posts on this thread that explain people's reasons for preferring a CP to MARRIAGE.

I think that the CPs should be available for anyone. Whatever the legal ruling may be there is still a cultural aspect to marriage which rules it out for many. The concept of CP is free from this. It may seem to be only a difference in terms but for many this matters. Personally one marriage was enough for me and any other relationship would have to be a legal partnership. It seems wrong that any couple who have agreed to share their lives should be prevented from creating legal safeguards for each other.

There is no legal difference between the two, which is the point of the exercise. Hope the law does not have to change and I would certainly not sign a petition as I think it ridiculous. If you don't want marriage a solicitor can sort out the rest.

Why should you have to employ a solicitor and pay for what should be a right for a co-habiting partner? For example if a man dies without making a will the cohabiting partner has no right to inherit.
There may be no legal difference but for some there is a moral difference, for many marriage is something to be undertaken only once. Why would you want to force them to marry again?