Civil Partnerships for different sex couples.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 14766
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
George Kaplan said:
if I recall correctly ‘civil partnership’ was a legal arrangement that was available to gay people - and made so because marriage wasn’t perceived as an option at the time.
Now that marriage is possible for gay people I don’t understand the distinction. I’m happy to be enlightened as to the practical differences. I’m not making a point here: I’m seeking opinion. And nobody yet has given me any understanding of why there’s such a huge difference between marriage and civil partnership apart from what it’s called. The only things mentioned are that the woman doesn’t have to change their name, and the vows can be amended - both of which are options in marriage iirc.


another option available in marriage.


if I could understand that response I’m sure I’d agree.
Click to expand...
Whatever the rules, it should have applied to everyone.
 


George Kaplan said:
Well I just chanced upon this article and a quick glance tells me that there’s not a huge difference except it’s not possible to annul a civil partnership. So fewer rights.

What Is A Civil Partnership And How Is It Different From Getting Married?

Edit: “People just don’t want to get married”? Well 250,000 straight couples were married in 2019. So not all of them.
Click to expand...
Weird. I was talking about this today. I’m aware of all the financial planning benefits, but thought there must be some other benefit such as it’s easier to split up. It appears from that it’s not, although, is that article classing annulment the sane as divorce? I’m not sure if the differences.

In all, it seems like something to please a very very small minority. I don’t really see the point as it appears it’s for people who don’t want to repeat the vows associated with marriage. Everything else around it seems to be flexible anyway.
 
Longy said:
Weird. I was talking about this today. I’m aware of all the financial planning benefits, but thought there must be some other benefit such as it’s easier to split up. It appears from that it’s not, although, is that article classing annulment the sane as divorce? I’m not sure if the differences.

In all, it seems like something to please a very very small minority. I don’t really see the point as it appears it’s for people who don’t want to repeat the vows associated with marriage. Everything else around it seems to be flexible anyway.
Click to expand...

We fell in love, we got married. I recall a conversation about what would be said within the vows and I didn’t have any problem with it, neither did my future wife - because we love one another. I don’t recall having a conversation about the exact nature of our contractual relationship, the nature of annulment and/or divorce, the implications plus legal and cultural nuances of the union we were creating or the fairness or otherwise of being allowed to call it something other than what it had been called for thousands of years. I suppose it was all just a whirl of romance and flower petals.

We talked about a joint account and the mortgage though-but.
 
They are for lesbian woman who haven’t come out to their family yet. They want to give the illusion that they aren’t gay without committing all in to marriage.
 
So a civil partnership is the same but you do not have the legal bit. So is it something that can be walked away if someone thinks "fucks this".
Those that oppose marriage are like vegans, they have to tell you and why.
cornish mackem said:
Whatever the rules, it should have applied to everyone.
Click to expand...
This. Abolish everything, then bring in something that applies to everyone.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top