Civil partnership vs marriage

[Ric.ror]

I really don't know what the difference is

[jno]

just the name, I think. At the moment gays can't say they're married, and they'd like to. Christian ones would like to be married in a church too

[AliceTickband]

As far as I am concerned if the participants want to call it marriage then that is deffo fine, but I cannot understand why Christian gay people would want the sanction of a religious service from an organisation that abhors their life style.

I would be grateful if any ABers could enlighten me.

[jno]

organisations don't abhor things; only people can do that. Most Christians in this country don't.

[AliceTickband]

I'm sure most Christians ARE tolerant but I don't understand why anyone would want an OK from a religion that thinks that their lifestyle is wrong.....and I am talking about religion here, not faith.

[tamborine]

A Registry office or a place of worship. Civil was good enough for POW & Cammy & they're accepted as married.

[jackthehat]

Most of the gay couples considering getting married don't want any sort of sanction from any particular religion.
They want the State to accept them as married.

[anotheoldgit]

/// They want the State to accept them as married. ///

'Married' is just a word, how are homosexual couples any less privileged in the eyes of the law by being in a civil partnership, rather than being 'married'?

They can class themselves as being 'married' If they so wish, no one is stopping them.

[jackthehat]

Legally, they can't, AOG.
On official forms, etc. they have to declare themselves as 'CPd' which immediately announces to all they they are in a gay relationship.

Just think of the amount of Printers' Ink which could be saved by simply asking if the form-filler is 'married' or not.

[jackthehat]

*that they...

[tamborine]

Most forms I see ask 'status' then list Mr, mrs, ms etc. Can't you just put Ms, what forms do you refer to JTH ?

[anotheoldgit]

/// Just think of the amount of Printers' Ink which could be saved by simply asking if the form-filler is 'married' or not. ///

A small price to pay considering the huge number of languages forms must now be printed in.

But still not quite with you on this, it would still just be printed 'marital status' to which one would add either Married, Single, Divorced, Widow, Widower or Civil Partnership.

/// What is your marital status?
This is your current marital status
Unless single, please provide evidence of your marital status
e.g. marriage or civil partnership certificate, ///

It would seem that it is possible for same sex couples to now go through a civil partnership ceremony in a church.

http://www.dailymail....tml?ito=feeds-newsxml

[sp1814]

AOG

But how can people in civil partnership have a 'marital status' if they are not allowed to call themselves 'married'?

Ric.ror - there's no legal difference between the state of marriage and civil partnership - but there ARE differences in the way they are perceived. Because gay partners aren't allowed to say they are married, some feel that they're signed up toa 'second best' option.

Actually I think the only difference are rules governing the consummation of the couple.

But over and above that, there's what some believe to be the 'clinical' aspect of entering a civil partnership.

I know some people who are putting off their wedding (more on that in a moment) because they feel that 'getting married' is more romantic and defines their relationship more than 'entering a civil union', which (a couple of mates have described) had the romance of signs up for an extended warranty for your fridge freezer.

Back to the terminology - people don't tend to say 'civil partnership ceremony' (too much of a mouthful) - they say 'wedding'. People more and more are saying 'I got married' when technically they mean, 'I formally entered a civil union'.

Perhaps the law is catching up with us, rather than leading us?

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// But how can people in civil partnership have a 'marital status' if they are not allowed to call themselves 'married'? ///

No one can be arrested for stating that they are 'married', don't heterosexual couples who have gone through a 'civil ceremony' also call themselves married?

I admit at times one is legally bound to provide proof, but is there any difference in providing a Marriage Certificate as there is by providing proof via a Civil Partnership certificate?

[Brenden]

As JTH stated on official forms they have to declare themselves as CPd, on a marriage certificate I presume nobody can tell if they are same sex partners or not.

[cathfromsaron]

i think that the state can call it's legal contract of commitment whatever it wishes, but i should be the same name for all sexualities!

[cathfromsaron]

*its oops

[joeluke]

Marriage - man and woman

Civil Partnership - man and man or woman and woman



It ain't rocket science

[sp1814]

AOG

You wrote:

don't heterosexual couples who have gone through a 'civil ceremony' also call themselves married?

Yes - but they ARE married. They've not entered a civil partnership. They've entered a marriage without any religious overtones.

Also been thinking - official forms could be simplified if gays were allowed to enter civil marriages. Not only would we not need to worry about having to include 'in a civil partnership', but we would also neatly sidestep the issue of what a married gay man or lesbian calls their partner.

[modeller]

This is a bit like being buried in 'dedicated ground '. I remember reading about a farmer who wanted to be buried on his own land but was told by the local vicar that wasn't possible as in the eyes of the church he wouldn't then be dead as the land was not dedicated.
In the event the farmer won the day and was buried where he wanted with no dedication.
However I can understand the clerics hanging on to their long established practices in marriage and death ,if for no other reason it's a loss of their power.

[sp1814]

modeller

A point that needs to be repeated in this discussion is that the Church of England and the Catholic church and synogogues, temples and other holy places are NOT the issue.

The change in the law only affects civil ceremonies, not religious ones.

It would be a travesty to force churches to marry gay couples, but not (say) divorced people.

What the government should do is state clearly and unequivocally, that religious establishments would be excluded from this new legislation.

Anyone gay couple who then decided to challenge this would find themselves absolutely torn to pieces by the gay community, because it would be obvious that they're just doing it to stir up anti-gay sentiment.

As it is, this law will pass (I've seen some polls and ministers are in favour of it - remember not everyone is a conservative, and Liberals and Labour are overwhelmingly supportive).

Also, if you look at a series of polls over the past two months, it seems that the general public are in favour. There's a hard core of those opposed, and a hard core of those strongly in favour, but an even BIGGER number of people whose attitude is, "Whatever...let the get married, I'm not fussed".