Civil partnerships


#1

This seems like a bullshit decision


#2

hmmm, generally agree with them but anyone holding up a ‘straight equality’ banner wants to have a long, hard look at themselves


#3

^this, fucking hell, what a fucking state


#4

Is there a legal difference between marriage and civil partnership?

If not it always seemed a bit like arguing over what a word could mean, mainly in the context of those anti gay marriage people going ‘no marriage is our word, we don’t want other people to use it’.


#5

I’m in a strange place on this one because whilst I think that civil partnerships should be open to heterosexual couples… I can’t understand why it’s bothered this couple so much that they’ve gone through the courts to this degree about it. Does it matter that much? I dunno.


#6

#7

Once you’ve started down that path forever consume you, it will…

(Basically you can’t really turn back can you? You’ve decided it’s important and then you get all sulky and mulish about it and before you know it, you’re fucking totally GUARDIAN and in court.)


#8

They probably just really love a̶t̶t̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ equality


#9

Not really for me to judge these individuals but I fail to see what marriage prevents these people from doing which a civil partnership would wholeheartedly solve.


#10

Nothing. It’s a point of principle. But it’s a really twattish one that doesn’t really seem good, does it?


#11

I guess it’s the patriachal history of marriage and the religious links of it. Which is fair enough. Like I agree straight couples should be able to have civil partnerships. And I’d probably choose one over marriage given the choice. But fuck me they come across as a pair of babies


#12

^This, how would a civil partnership differ from a non religious civil marriage? Is it literally as to what it says on the certificate?
In that case surly a marriage/civil partnership is what it means to the people involved and what they want it to be and nothing else.


#13

I mean the judges have just said “this is for parliament to decide” really haven’t they. I mean I could have told them that.

Yeah but their point is that it impinges on their human rights isn’t it which… can’t be easily dismissed because it does in theory. Although from a bluntly pragmatic point of view it’s perfectly possible to organise a marriage in which the patriarchal elements are all harpooned. I mean, I’ve done it. From a bluntly pragmatic perspective, I just don’t know why it matters SO MUCH to these people.


#14

Because it isn’t ‘marriage’. That’s the central point.


#15

But what does that mean? Just what you call it? Is it just semantics? It’s all a bit ‘rose by any other name’ isn’t it?

I’m sure the people on here who are married don’t see it as a ‘problematic’ term, why not? Cause what it means ultimately comes from the people involved and not a nebulous concept of what it might represent.

Hell, call it Super-Fun-Lifetime-Best-Buddy-Team-Up for all I care but don’t pretend it’s something different.


#16

I just assumed straight people could have civil partnerships. Now they’re no longer just a roundabout way of letting gay people marry, surely you either you keep civil partnerships and make them for everyone or just do away with them and have marriage for everyone. I definitely think it’s better to have the choice of something with similar legal rights but without the religious and social baggage of a marriage available to all, personally.


#17

In the Netherlands heterosexual couples have the choice between marriage and civil partnership. There are a few differences:

  • parental responsibility for children is automatically shared in a marriage, whereas in a civil partnership this is only the case for the biological parent(s), and a non-biological parent will have to adopt the child to become the legal custodian
  • a civil partnership can be terminated without having to go to court
  • you don’t have to say “I do” when you enter a civil partnership
  • marriage is recognised all over the world, unlike a civil partnership

#18

So you’re allowed to compromise and say “meh… we’ll see” instead?


#19

If that’s the case then surely you accept that marriage might mean something negative to some people, who then wouldn’t want to enter into it?


#20

No chat, just sign on the dotted line.