Couples make history in first mixed-sex civil partnerships

Good news, time things were open to all.

About time too.

Yes, great news. It was bound to happen at some point though.

Obviously equality is important, but Isn't this just marriage with a different name ? Not sure why the sort of person who “doesn’t believe in marriage” or thinks “it’s only a piece of paper” isn’t suddenly going to want to have a civil partnership. Maybe it’s just professional middle class couples who will be doing this. Now there’s equality in marriage, and lots of gay couples have got married - Why have both?

It would appeal to people like myself. I'm not married - I could be if I was asked but I dislike the "wife" connotations. To me it smacks of patriarchy.

I m not sure I understand the need for this what s the difference I m nor saying it’s right or wrong just not sure of it’s relevance

There is no ceremony involved, no vows etc simply go to registrar and sign the document, witnessed by two people and you're done.
I've lived with my OH for 40 years, having been divorced. Would never go through marriage ceremony again but would consider this.

Surely when same sex marriage became possible there was no longer a need for civil partnerships. Existing civil partners could have been granted married status and civil partnerships abolished.

An unhappy first marriage had me unwilling to marry again. Inheritance issues and children led mt to marry for the second time 36 years ago. We remain very happy thankfully. The patriarchal implications of marriage bothered both of us, we were and remain committed to a loving partnership. If civil partnership had been an option, it’s the one we’d have taken.

The two people would then be partners, rather than husband and wife. Is that it?
Is there a legal advantage to it?

What happens if they split up?

Gay people can choose whether to marry or have a civil partnership. Up until now heterosexual couples could only marry. As stated here many people dislike the concept of marriage for various reasons , but seek legal protection

I had no idea it wasn't aleady a thing!

Better late than never.

Where I live Civil Partnerships have been available since 1987.

I agree with suzied. Can't see the point. Will there be legal implications if they split up?

You cannot have a pre - nup agreement with a civil partnership apparently

I can’t help wondering whether it’s going to make any difference to the sort of couples where one of them (more often the woman) would like a legal union, but the other doesn’t, because ‘it’s just a piece of paper’.

Only for him to take off after some, or even many years, with someone else, and marry soon afterwards,

I know of a few such cases and have heard of several more. It wasn’t that he didn’t want to make the commitment - he just didn’t want to make it with his former partner.

I cannot see how this differs from marriage. Whatever those wanting one say, the difference is entirely semantic. The meaning and practice of marriage, like everything else in life has changed its meaning and developed over centuries. and it is sad that some people are so busy looking at the past that they cannot see what marriage actually means nowadays and contribute themselves to ensuring in the future that it remains the free and equal commitment it now is.

Would they refuse to send their children to school, because girls and boys used to be schooled separately and taught to different curriculums, one to prepare boys for employment, while girls were educated in the domestic skills to make them good wives and mothers?

What we should do is separate the legal act of forming a partnership from any other partnership ceremony, whether religious or other. It is what already happens in France and several other European

I really can't see the point. Why dislike the 'concept of marriage ' when you are living with someone, have children with them and share a mortgage? What is it that frightens them?
Someone rather pitifully said to me, 'I live in the house with three people (my partner and our children) and they share the same surname; I am not allowed to because he won't marry me.'

As I saw on the news yesterday, the woman in the first civil partnership said she had ‘feminist objections’ to the institution of marriage.
According to a thread on MN many seem to see the very word ‘wife’ as sexist, patriarchal and demeaning.

I can’t say I’ve ever felt any of that.

Once the concept of Civil Partnership was introduced, I could never understand why it wasn't available for all. I think it's fine that people who feel they need an alternative to marriage now have it.

two women take their family cars to the garage,

1. My husband will collect the car this evening.

2. My legal civil partner will collect the car this evening.

Easibee The person who spoke about sharing names could have changed hers by deed poll .
Monica Making a legal partnership is exactly what a civil partnership is

I don't understand what the patriarchal implications of marriage are?

Can someone who is in a civil partnership with another person just go off and marry someone else? Would the civil partnership have to be dissolved with the agreement of both sides first?