It's possible that two people may want some sort of legally binding union even though they aren't romantically involved. Two elderly sisters who share a house, for example. If a civil partnership works for that sort of set-up, then I see no issue in that being allowed.
Marriage for romantically involved people, regardless of the gender mix - I'm absolutely fine with that.
That's why I went for the final option of allowing both.
You still wouldn't be allowed to "marry" your sibling even in a civil partnership. If the two sisters want to have a legally binding contract they can go to their solicitor and have one drawn up.
It doesn't really bother me either way but I think the option to either marry with all the religious connotations that entails or the right to a civil union with the legal connotations that entails, should be available to everyone.
Yes, as you suggest, CPs should be avaiilable to all, otherwise we won't have equality.
As for the "no need for it" argument I've seen mentioned, well that's a matter of opinion so individuals should be free to decide for themselves. One difference in some people's eyes, for example, might be that CPs do not carry any of the historical baggage of what was for many Centuries a religious, highly patriarchal and male-dominated institution; some might argue that to some extent this is still the case.
There are I am sure other reasons too why some might prefer a CP to a marriage, so it should be for them to decide for themselves. Interestingly, early on in the poll, 2/3rd of people voting so far seem to agree with that point of view, though it's odd that essentially the same question appears first and last (assuming equal marriage) so we have to mentally add them together!
I didn't really understand the poll, so didn't vote.
Anyway, my view is -
There should be either marriage, or civil partnerships, applicable to all couples. It would probably be preferable to most people to call it marriage.I think the legal 'aspect' should be held in a registry office, then the couple are free to have whatever kind of religious blessing or ceremony they choose afterwards.
A lot of people seem to think the difference between marriage and civil partnership is that one is religious and the other isn't, saying "people should have the option to get married without the religious bits". That's how it is now, the ceremony can be religious or not, the marriage is a non-religious legal contract.
Most marriages are Godless occasions these days anyway. Not least of all the ones held in a church. The ones that do go for a church wedding, usually do so in an effort to make the wedding pictures really stand out.
I should think that most heterosexuals would want pretty wedding pictures, without the threat of eternal damnation if they don't return to the same church once the honeymoon period is over. But that's pretty much how the church works. Fear mongers.
No offense intended. I simply meant that if two people want, they can have a friendly vicar read out the Bristol A-Z under a full-moon at midnight, call it a wedding and say they're married if they want to.
Not sure about the non-consumation or recognition abroad aspects, but a civil wedding already 'bans' any religious element to it, even, usually, to the extent of songs or pieces of music that have a religious element or background.
It's occurred to me that I guess the issue was that heterosexual couples could choose a religious aspect to their official ceremony by marrying in church, whereas same sex couples can't (although they can have their union blessed or whatever, afterwards).
You're still right, because that applies to all civil ceremonies but I think that was what I was thinking of.
After same sex marriages are legal, same sex couples still won't be able to get married in the state churches, even if they attend the church.
A lot of people seem to think the difference between marriage and civil partnership is that one is religious and the other isn't, saying "people should have the option to get married without the religious bits". That's how it is now, the ceremony can be religious or not, the marriage is a non-religious legal contract.
Exactly one is conducted by a Registrar the other by a Vicar you both come away with the same marriage certificate whether it is a Civil Wedding or a Religious wedding.
Civil Partnerships are pointless once same sex marriage becomes law, they give the couple the same rights as married couples so why not just get married.
Most marriages are Godless occasions these days anyway. Not least of all the ones held in a church. The ones that do go for a church wedding, usually do so in an effort to make the wedding pictures really stand out.
I should think that most heterosexuals would want pretty wedding pictures, without the threat of eternal damnation if they don't return to the same church once the honeymoon period is over. But that's pretty much how the church works. Fear mongers.
When we were looking at venues for our wedding, we found a really nice country house type of venue that did both the ceremony and the reception. I actually felt though daft as it sounds that I wouldn't feel properly married if I didn't get married in Church. It's daft I know but for me the Church is part of that. (I'm firmly on the fence where religion is concerned).
I think what they should have done is require all marriages to be civil marriages performed at the registry office, and then if they want to get a full ceromony it's done separately in a venue that will host them. The civil part would be the legal marriage.
It's possible that two people may want some sort of legally binding union even though they aren't romantically involved. Two elderly sisters who share a house, for example. If a civil partnership works for that sort of set-up, then I see no issue in that being allowed.
This is actually a tax problem and as people get older and live longer the bigger problem it becomes.
If the two sisters jointly own the house, when the first one dies even if their share is left to the other sister, there may well be a liability for inheritance tax as they are not legally "partnered". This could result in the property having to be sold to meet the tax bill with considerable distress to the surviving sister.
But what is it that straight people can get from a CP that they can't get from Marriage?
I mean CPs were only ever invented as a cop out for gay people to shut them up. (Not that it worked!)
I thought they were working on doing away with CP for gay people once they had normal marriage and have some sort of 'conversion' to marriage for those already in CPs?
But back to the point: As straight people can have a quickie marriage in a registary office with no religious trappings and little else, why do you want CPs? What benefit over a marriage is it?
I think what they should have done is require all marriages to be civil marriages performed at the registry office, and then if they want to get a full ceromony it's done separately in a venue that will host them. The civil part would be the legal marriage.
Basically what they do in France.
Completely agree. Any sort of ceremony should be separate from the papers needed for registration.
I think what they should have done is require all marriages to be civil marriages performed at the registry office, and then if they want to get a full ceromony it's done separately in a venue that will host them. The civil part would be the legal marriage.
But what is it that straight people can get from a CP that they can't get from Marriage?
I mean CPs were only ever invented as a cop out for gay people to shut them up. (Not that it worked!)
I thought they were working on doing away with CP for gay people once they had normal marriage and have some sort of 'conversion' to marriage for those already in CPs?
But back to the point: As straight people can have a quickie marriage in a registary office with no religious trappings and little else, why do you want CPs? What benefit over a marriage is it?
Because you may have two people who aren't necessarily romantically involved, but who would like some sort of legal recognition of their partnership. I gave an example earlier on in the thread of two elderly sisters who share a property and want to ensure that if one of them dies, the other will have rights towards that property.
Oh I see that some are now wanting CP for non-sexual set ups thereby not getting the whole point of marriage or it's CP gay cop out was meant for.
See this reeks of yet more homophobia. Some can't ever see gay people in a sexual relationship as a genuine thing in any way equal to a straight sexual relationship, and so they now just run with it and think that any two people should have a CP as that is what gay people are doing.
It's making a mockery out of gay relationships and I think that is some people's intention.
After all when the Same Sex Marriage bill was being talked about, there where some dismissing it with comments like: "So two brothers or two sisters can now get married?". They missed the whole point that both marriage (all kinds) and CPs are for sexual relationships. CPs were invented as a thing for gay sexual relationships.
Now we are back to the 'you can now marry your cat brigade'.
One little step forward for gay people - trying to be devalued and made a joke by straight homophobes.
Oh I see that some are now wanting CP for non-sexual set ups thereby not getting the whole point of marriage or it's CP gay cop out was meant for.
See this reeks of yet more homophobia. Some can't ever see gay people in a sexual relationship as a genuine thing in any way equal to a straight sexual relationship, and so they now just run with it and think that any two people should have a CP as that is what gay people are doing.
It's making a mockery out of gay relationships and I think that is some people's intention.
After all when the Same Sex Marriage bill was being talked about, there where some dismissing it with comments like: "So two brothers or two sisters can now get married?". They missed the whole point that both marriage (all kinds) and CPs are for sexual relationships. CPs were invented as a thing for gay sexual relationships.
Now we are back to the 'you can now marry your cat brigade'.
One little step forward for gay people - trying to be devalued and made a joke by straight homophobes.
Different day, same old crap.
What as a sexual relationship got to do with anything just because two people are together doesn't mean it has to be a sexual relationship what about people who can't have sex due to medical problems.
What about some asexual people who may feel romantic attraction but not sexual they have got married before but will never have sex.
I think marriage and CPs are supposed to be about emotional committed relationships involving two people. It is true that some people have tried to diminish gay relationships as unequal to heterosexual ones and have tried to promote them as 'arrangements', different from the sanctification of heterosexual relationships by marriage.
And some of the CPs for sisters etc may be coming from that angle (not all, of course, as with James and grantus).
Therefore, maybe, CPs should be abolished or seen as a secure status for financial and living arrangements, separate from the emotionally committed idea of marriage type relationships (with sex, or not).
What as a sexual relationship got to do with anything just because two people are together doesn't mean it has to be a sexual relationship what about people who can't have sex due to medical problems.
What about some asexual people who may feel romantic attraction but not sexual they have got married before but will never have sex.
Not every relationship is purely about the sex
Ok, it doesn't necessarily have to be sexual (many aren't by the time the big day comes around) but the point of marriage or CP is it's a public declaration or formalising or whatever you want to describe it as of a 'romantic' relationship between two people (whether it actually is or not, you're declaring that it is) as opposed to being a business arrangement. If two people want to be recognised as being 'dependant' on one another in the eyes of the law, then there's usually a way to do that with the help of a solicitor. How often does the 'elderly sisters' situation come up that means CP for all is necessary?
And some of the CPs for sisters etc may be coming from that angle (not all, of course, as with James and grantus).
Therefore, maybe, CPs should be abolished or seen as a secure status for financial and living arrangements, separate from the emotionally committed idea of marriage type relationships (with sex, or not).
That's really what I had in mind - marriage for those romantically involved (gay or straight) and civil partnership for those who want to formalise a different sort of relationship, such as the two sisters example - mainly to avoid the red tape and hoop-jumping that would otherwise be required.
I think marriage and CPs are supposed to be about emotional committed relationships involving two people. It is true that some people have tried to diminish gay relationships as unequal to heterosexual ones and have tried to promote them as 'arrangements', different from the sanctification of heterosexual relationships by marriage.
And some of the CPs for sisters etc may be coming from that angle (not all, of course, as with James and grantus).
Therefore, maybe, CPs should be abolished or seen as a secure status for financial and living arrangements, separate from the emotionally committed idea of marriage type relationships (with sex, or not).
If it's not currently possible to do this via a solicitor, then I agree some sort of process probably is necessary. I wouldn't call it CP thought. Too confusing, as it would already have been used to describe something completely different.
That's really what I had in mind - marriage for those romantically involved (gay or straight) and civil partnership for those who want to formalise a different sort of relationship, such as the two sisters example - mainly to avoid the red tape and hoop-jumping that would otherwise be required.
Yes, exactly. I'm not sure how it would work in practice and whether the state would try and resist tax planning aspects of it.
If it's not currently possible to do this via a solicitor, then I agree some sort of process probably is necessary. I wouldn't call it CP thought. Too confusing, as it would already have been used to describe something completely different.
Yes, perhaps Secure Living Arrangements or something. I'm not sure how much call for them they'd be. I would imagine the purpose would be not to have someone sell a house you live in with them over your head (or that you can't takeover a tenancy on their death/they can't give a unilateral notice to quit) and for tax planning (which the government might not like)?
Comments
You still wouldn't be allowed to "marry" your sibling even in a civil partnership. If the two sisters want to have a legally binding contract they can go to their solicitor and have one drawn up.
Yes, as you suggest, CPs should be avaiilable to all, otherwise we won't have equality.
As for the "no need for it" argument I've seen mentioned, well that's a matter of opinion so individuals should be free to decide for themselves. One difference in some people's eyes, for example, might be that CPs do not carry any of the historical baggage of what was for many Centuries a religious, highly patriarchal and male-dominated institution; some might argue that to some extent this is still the case.
There are I am sure other reasons too why some might prefer a CP to a marriage, so it should be for them to decide for themselves. Interestingly, early on in the poll, 2/3rd of people voting so far seem to agree with that point of view, though it's odd that essentially the same question appears first and last (assuming equal marriage) so we have to mentally add them together!
Anyway, my view is -
There should be either marriage, or civil partnerships, applicable to all couples. It would probably be preferable to most people to call it marriage.I think the legal 'aspect' should be held in a registry office, then the couple are free to have whatever kind of religious blessing or ceremony they choose afterwards.
I should think that most heterosexuals would want pretty wedding pictures, without the threat of eternal damnation if they don't return to the same church once the honeymoon period is over. But that's pretty much how the church works. Fear mongers.
You're still right, because that applies to all civil ceremonies but I think that was what I was thinking of.
After same sex marriages are legal, same sex couples still won't be able to get married in the state churches, even if they attend the church.
Exactly one is conducted by a Registrar the other by a Vicar you both come away with the same marriage certificate whether it is a Civil Wedding or a Religious wedding.
Civil Partnerships are pointless once same sex marriage becomes law, they give the couple the same rights as married couples so why not just get married.
When we were looking at venues for our wedding, we found a really nice country house type of venue that did both the ceremony and the reception. I actually felt though daft as it sounds that I wouldn't feel properly married if I didn't get married in Church. It's daft I know but for me the Church is part of that. (I'm firmly on the fence where religion is concerned).
They'll be no need for it
Basically what they do in France.
This is actually a tax problem and as people get older and live longer the bigger problem it becomes.
If the two sisters jointly own the house, when the first one dies even if their share is left to the other sister, there may well be a liability for inheritance tax as they are not legally "partnered". This could result in the property having to be sold to meet the tax bill with considerable distress to the surviving sister.
Unintended consequences always trump fairness!
I mean CPs were only ever invented as a cop out for gay people to shut them up. (Not that it worked!)
I thought they were working on doing away with CP for gay people once they had normal marriage and have some sort of 'conversion' to marriage for those already in CPs?
But back to the point: As straight people can have a quickie marriage in a registary office with no religious trappings and little else, why do you want CPs? What benefit over a marriage is it?
Because you may have two people who aren't necessarily romantically involved, but who would like some sort of legal recognition of their partnership. I gave an example earlier on in the thread of two elderly sisters who share a property and want to ensure that if one of them dies, the other will have rights towards that property.
See this reeks of yet more homophobia. Some can't ever see gay people in a sexual relationship as a genuine thing in any way equal to a straight sexual relationship, and so they now just run with it and think that any two people should have a CP as that is what gay people are doing.
It's making a mockery out of gay relationships and I think that is some people's intention.
After all when the Same Sex Marriage bill was being talked about, there where some dismissing it with comments like: "So two brothers or two sisters can now get married?". They missed the whole point that both marriage (all kinds) and CPs are for sexual relationships. CPs were invented as a thing for gay sexual relationships.
Now we are back to the 'you can now marry your cat brigade'.
One little step forward for gay people - trying to be devalued and made a joke by straight homophobes.
Different day, same old crap.
Then you start up a business agreement!
Marriage and CPs are for people in sexual relationships. That what CP were invented for!
Some old muddy the waters and miss the whole point and stamp all over gay people struggle.
Sickening!
What as a sexual relationship got to do with anything just because two people are together doesn't mean it has to be a sexual relationship what about people who can't have sex due to medical problems.
What about some asexual people who may feel romantic attraction but not sexual they have got married before but will never have sex.
Not every relationship is purely about the sex
Erm... I've been an advocate for gay rights for a long time and I fully support gay marriage. WTF are you talking about?
And some of the CPs for sisters etc may be coming from that angle (not all, of course, as with James and grantus).
Therefore, maybe, CPs should be abolished or seen as a secure status for financial and living arrangements, separate from the emotionally committed idea of marriage type relationships (with sex, or not).
That's really what I had in mind - marriage for those romantically involved (gay or straight) and civil partnership for those who want to formalise a different sort of relationship, such as the two sisters example - mainly to avoid the red tape and hoop-jumping that would otherwise be required.