I agree,now both same sex and straight couples are equal in the eyes of the law we don't really need civil partnerships..do we?
No we do. Those gay folks who got CPs when they were allowed them, it meant something to them. They've been messed around enough, let them keep their Cps if they want to. If we get rid of CPs then they will either have to change them to marriages, which they never signed up for, or they become invalid.
Marriage and CP is about stability.
Idk what the options are, maybe someone could tell me what will happen that will fix this.
No we do. Those gay folks who got CPs when they were allowed them, it meant something to them. They've been messed around enough, let them keep their Cps if they want to. If we get rid of CPs then they will either have to change them to marriages, which they never signed up for, or they become invalid.
Marriage and CP is about stability.
Idk what the options are, maybe someone could tell me what will happen that will fix this.
The govt created the mess, perhaps they would like to fund the weddings for those forced into a CP because they had no other choice.
The govt created the mess, perhaps they would like to fund the weddings for those forced into a CP because they had no other choice.
The government is proposing three different courses of action in relation to civil partnerships. The first is to scrap them altogether and thus people with civil partnerships will have to convert them although the process for doing that hasn't been finalised yet. I know in other jurisdictions it was automatic but I don't think that will be the case here.
The second possibility is to continue civil partnerships and open them up to heterosexual couples. The third option is to stop new civil partnerships but allow those currently in civil partnerships to keep them if they want to.
I have a feeling that Cameron won't want to go for opening civil partnerships to heterosexuals. It'll be seen as an attack on marriage and will simply reopen the rifts that the same sex marriage debate caused. I suspect the government will want to opt for either option 1 or 3.
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!
This post sums it up perfectly and I agree with everything you have said in this post.
The government is proposing three different courses of action in relation to civil partnerships. The first is to scrap them altogether and thus people with civil partnerships will have to convert them although the process for doing that hasn't been finalised yet. I know in other jurisdictions it was automatic but I don't think that will be the case here.
The second possibility is to continue civil partnerships and open them up to heterosexual couples. The third option is to stop new civil partnerships but allow those currently in civil partnerships to keep them if they want to.
I have a feeling that Cameron won't want to go for opening civil partnerships to heterosexuals. It'll be seen as an attack on marriage and will simply reopen the rifts that the same sex marriage debate caused. I suspect the government will want to opt for either option 1 or 3.
Maybe so but that would be taking peoples choice away and anyhow by the time this consultation is finished its very unlikely that this government will have the time to make any changes by drafting up legislation unless they rush it through of course which I highly doubt, its also unlikely that the Conservatives are going to win the General Election we don`t know for certain of course but its looking increasingly unlikely in which case it`ll be up to the Labour administration which I believe they actually support the idea of opening up Civil Partnerships to heterosexuals.
Maybe so but that would be taking peoples choice away and anyhow by the time this consultation is finished its very unlikely that this government will have the time to make any changes by drafting up legislation unless they rush it through of course which I highly doubt, its also unlikely that the Conservatives are going to win the General Election we don`t know for certain of course but its looking increasingly unlikely in which case it`ll be up to the Labour administration which I believe they actually support the idea of opening up Civil Partnerships to heterosexuals.
It's only a short consultation but you might be right. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the outcome of the consultation will be. There are quite a few left over bits and pieces to sort out including pensions issues and humanist weddings and I suspect none of that will be sorted out any time soon either.
The government is proposing three different courses of action in relation to civil partnerships. The first is to scrap them altogether and thus people with civil partnerships will have to convert them although the process for doing that hasn't been finalised yet. I know in other jurisdictions it was automatic but I don't think that will be the case here.
The second possibility is to continue civil partnerships and open them up to heterosexual couples. The third option is to stop new civil partnerships but allow those currently in civil partnerships to keep them if they want to.
I have a feeling that Cameron won't want to go for opening civil partnerships to heterosexuals. It'll be seen as an attack on marriage and will simply reopen the rifts that the same sex marriage debate caused. I suspect the government will want to opt for either option 1 or 3.
As much as I have always disliked CP's I think the only fair way would be the third option. I think to have created a situation which removed the choice of marriage it would be unfair not to allow those with CP's the choice of keeping them if they wish to. It would be interesting to know what those with CP's feel about it.
I voted to scrap, because I think equal marriage makes civil partnerships redundant. I also think that any existing civil partnerships should be automatically converted into marriages, with no cost to the couple.
As much as I have always disliked CP's I think the only fair way would be the third option. I think to have created a situation which removed the choice of marriage it would be unfair not to allow those with CP's the choice of keeping them if they wish to. It would be interesting to know what those with CP's feel about it.
I think that would be the simplest option. Dump new CPs as everyone now has equal marriage and that was the ONLY reason for inventing CPs for in the first place. A CP is only a legal contract between two people, so those with a CP can stick to that, annul it and then marry or not as they wish. Marriage would nullify the terms of the CP anyway.
So they can stay with their CP legal agreement, get married and that takes precedence over the CP or go their separate ways and annul the CP. (They would then be free to marry another or the same person again)
It's only a short consultation but you might be right. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the outcome of the consultation will be. There are quite a few left over bits and pieces to sort out including pensions issues and humanist weddings and I suspect none of that will be sorted out any time soon either.
Yes agree with you and regarding the pension issue I heard the government were looking into the pension issue for same-sex marriages last year but have not heard anything else on the matter since.
As far as I can see, there is no difference between civil partnership and marriage. I was listening to an argument last July that was in favour of Gay rights but didn't see the point of same sex marriage because Civil partnership provided pretty much the same thing.
As far as I can see, there is no difference between civil partnership and marriage. I was listening to an argument last July that was in favour of Gay rights but didn't see the point of same sex marriage because Civil partnership provided pretty much the same thing.
There IS a difference. Marriage carries Centuries of somewhat unwelcome baggage (to some), but CPs do not. That probably matters to some people, who should therefore have a choice (both existing civil partners and future couples). The legal and benfits positions of both should be made identical as far as is possible (because we can't control other Countries) and that is equality.
There IS a difference. Marriage carries Centuries of somewhat unwelcome baggage (to some), but CPs do not. That probably matters to some people, who should therefore have a choice (both existing civil partners and future couples). That is equality.
What baggage is that? What does marriage have legally that civil partnership doesn't have?
What baggage is that? What does marriage have legally that civil partnership doesn't have?
As I said in post #28, marriage was for many Centuries a religious, highly patriarchal and male-dominated institution; some might argue that to some extent this is still the case. If some people don't like that "baggage", they might prefer a CP to a marriage - hopefully the consultation will tell us. The legal positions, tax situations and everything else should of course be made identical (if they aren't already).
As I said in post #28, marriage was for many Centuries a religious, highly patriarchal and male-dominated institution; some might argue that to some extent this is still the case. If some people don't like that "baggage", they might prefer a CP to a marriage - hopefully the consultation will tell us. The legal positions, tax situations and everything else should of course be made identical (if they aren't already).
Was a CP not the same as marriage though in terms of all that? Is it just the word which sounds nicer? It's in law now, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Well CPs didn't exist in the UK before the 21st Century, so I don't think they carry any baggage at all. I just think people should have the choice, if anyone wants the choice of course (but the rights etc. should be made identical).
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.
Isn't that what a will's for? If the sisters want legal security they write a will just like unmarried couples do.
Comments
No we do. Those gay folks who got CPs when they were allowed them, it meant something to them. They've been messed around enough, let them keep their Cps if they want to. If we get rid of CPs then they will either have to change them to marriages, which they never signed up for, or they become invalid.
Marriage and CP is about stability.
Idk what the options are, maybe someone could tell me what will happen that will fix this.
The govt created the mess, perhaps they would like to fund the weddings for those forced into a CP because they had no other choice.
The government is proposing three different courses of action in relation to civil partnerships. The first is to scrap them altogether and thus people with civil partnerships will have to convert them although the process for doing that hasn't been finalised yet. I know in other jurisdictions it was automatic but I don't think that will be the case here.
The second possibility is to continue civil partnerships and open them up to heterosexual couples. The third option is to stop new civil partnerships but allow those currently in civil partnerships to keep them if they want to.
I have a feeling that Cameron won't want to go for opening civil partnerships to heterosexuals. It'll be seen as an attack on marriage and will simply reopen the rifts that the same sex marriage debate caused. I suspect the government will want to opt for either option 1 or 3.
This post sums it up perfectly and I agree with everything you have said in this post.
Maybe so but that would be taking peoples choice away and anyhow by the time this consultation is finished its very unlikely that this government will have the time to make any changes by drafting up legislation unless they rush it through of course which I highly doubt, its also unlikely that the Conservatives are going to win the General Election we don`t know for certain of course but its looking increasingly unlikely in which case it`ll be up to the Labour administration which I believe they actually support the idea of opening up Civil Partnerships to heterosexuals.
It's only a short consultation but you might be right. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the outcome of the consultation will be. There are quite a few left over bits and pieces to sort out including pensions issues and humanist weddings and I suspect none of that will be sorted out any time soon either.
As much as I have always disliked CP's I think the only fair way would be the third option. I think to have created a situation which removed the choice of marriage it would be unfair not to allow those with CP's the choice of keeping them if they wish to. It would be interesting to know what those with CP's feel about it.
I think that would be the simplest option. Dump new CPs as everyone now has equal marriage and that was the ONLY reason for inventing CPs for in the first place. A CP is only a legal contract between two people, so those with a CP can stick to that, annul it and then marry or not as they wish. Marriage would nullify the terms of the CP anyway.
So they can stay with their CP legal agreement, get married and that takes precedence over the CP or go their separate ways and annul the CP. (They would then be free to marry another or the same person again)
All clear cut and sensible.
Yes agree with you and regarding the pension issue I heard the government were looking into the pension issue for same-sex marriages last year but have not heard anything else on the matter since.
There IS a difference. Marriage carries Centuries of somewhat unwelcome baggage (to some), but CPs do not. That probably matters to some people, who should therefore have a choice (both existing civil partners and future couples). The legal and benfits positions of both should be made identical as far as is possible (because we can't control other Countries) and that is equality.
As I said in post #28, marriage was for many Centuries a religious, highly patriarchal and male-dominated institution; some might argue that to some extent this is still the case. If some people don't like that "baggage", they might prefer a CP to a marriage - hopefully the consultation will tell us. The legal positions, tax situations and everything else should of course be made identical (if they aren't already).
Isn't that what a will's for? If the sisters want legal security they write a will just like unmarried couples do.