So Why Shouldnt Heterosexual Couples Be Allow A Civil Partnership?

[youngmafbog]

Hardly fair is it?

http://news.sky.com/story/heterosexual-couple-lose-civil-partnership-court-of-appeal-battle-10776197

[sp1814]

It seems correct that CPs should be open to everyone or no-one, whether or not they are inferior to marriage.

However the idea of opening them up to anyone (siblings, mates etc) goes against the principles of what the CP is.

CPs are a form (lesser in my mind) of marriage. It's a civil union. It is specificall designed as a declaration of love - not as a means for people to get tax breaks.

[sp1814]

AOG

I'm assuming you already know the difference between the cases, and you're playing Devil's Advocate to move the debate into an interesting area, right?

[jackthehat]

///Perhaps they are trying to prove a point, after all it worked for the gay couple who wanted to bed down in a guest house, not to mention the cake episode.///

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true....

///But as usual, and which has been proven in this case, some don't have the benefit of a level playing field, but then we already knew that, didn't we? ///

I repeat, it's NOT our fault, AOG, that lies with the legislators.

[sp1814]

JTH

I don't think AOG means that at all. I'm sure he realises that in the case of the B&B and the cake shop, the people who brought the case were demanding that the law be upheld, whereas in this case, the couple are challenging for a change in the law.

And the level playing field to which he frequently refers is not as level as he may think, seeing as straight couples now (and for the foreseeable future) will enjoy certain privileges that are denied gay couples.

I'm sure he's aware of this - but let's hear from him (I still think he's playing Devil's Advocate).

[bednobs]

"but then we already knew that, didn't we? " not until the court case today

[Old_Geezer]

There should never have been a legal difference between the two. By definition a marriage needs different genders; now the authorities have tried to alter the definition rather than correct the partnership legislation, and created an unholy mess of things. But the best thing would be to not tie anything to such ceremonies and allow folk to designate an individual to qualify for any indefensible special privileges for being part of a couple, however the two individuals define it.

[sp1814]

O_G

You wrote:

But the best thing would be to not tie anything to such ceremonies and allow folk to designate an individual to qualify for any indefensible special privileges for being part of a couple, however the two individuals define it.

Can you clarify?

Are you saying that CPs and traditional marriages should have...nope...I'm lost.

[Peter Pedant]

// If you marry your partner, you are edible for all their pension contributions upon their death. //

I luuuurve the edible bit
eligible of course

There are difficulties with spz answer
on death there may be inherited parts of the pension
and I agree that the NHS pension only counts from 1985 in terms of the successor provisions. I always thought this was appealable to be honest

If you have not vested your pension ( = taken it) then the conts ARE inheritable and can be assigned or left in a will - but only as pennsion conts and not capital

The legislation was intended just to enact the civil bits of the Marriage Act 1752 so I am astounded there should be differences - however ..... not divorce but dissolution
( and clearly no religious bits )

the claimants in this case
just thought it might be nice to have a civil partnership

as a rock cake I am always astounded that doctrine of the church of england is changed by act of parliament ( 1662 common prayer book act and all that jazz)

[Peter Pedant]

// By definition a marriage needs different genders; now the authorities have tried to alter the definition rather than correct the partnership legislation,//

erm no - we have to look at the history
by 1752 marriage law was a MESS

unless you were married according to the C of E then your widow and children could not inherit

This was not a prob unless sundry atheists and dissenters got money -or quakers
by the 1750s this was the case
so the wise legislators ( o that we had a few nowadays blah blah blah ) divided marriage into religious and civil
The civil was done by the registrar - hey Protestant priests could be registrars - the rest of us had to hire them - and a priest/elder/minister to do the updown la-di dah bit

civil partnership just extended the intention was - the civil rights in law to two people fo the same sex

[Cloverjo]

Just wondering... Can you enter a civil partnership if you're still married to someone else?

I can't see the point of a CP when marriage is available. When they first came in, my OH suggested we do it, but he stopped short of asking me to marry him. I was quite offended, and said no to the CP.

[Cloverjo]

Not that we could have had a CP anyway, as it turns out.

[Ellipsis]

Civil partnerships can be converted into marriages, currently at a cost:

https://www.gov.uk/convert-civil-partnership/convert-a-civil-partnership-in-england-and-wales

Forthwith, "they" should

- stop any further civil partnerships
- give a date (e.g. in about a year's time) when all existing civil partnerships are automatically converted to marriages free of charge

This gives people in civil partnerships the opportunity to dissolve those partnerships in the next year, before they become marriages, if they so wish:

https://www.gov.uk/end-civil-partnership

[ToraToraTora]

works both ways I guess, so why not indeed.

[andy-hughes]

jack - //I repeat, it's NOT our fault, AOG, that lies with the legislators. //

Of course it is! By this time tomorrow they will have found out why, and told you on here.

Tut tut, I'm surprised at you!!!!

[DTCwordfan]

the law is an ass (or *** if this doesn't come through the censors)

[mikey4444]

This ban seems unfair, and I don't expect the situation to stay like it is for very long....sooner or later everyone will be able to have a civil partnership if they want one.

But I must also say that this couple could have everything they want and need, just by having a civil wedding, and I don't really understand why they don't just do it.

[Togo]

//i wonder if they are just trying to prove a point //

Heaven forbid. Where on earth would they get such devious and wicked tactics from? Which template could they possibly be basing their actions on? I keep saying it lessons have been learnt. Pandora's box of sly tricks is well and truly open.

[sp1814]

Togo

Iv you're referring to the cake and the b&b - the owners were breaking the law. In this case the couple are trying to change the law.

[dave50]

Attention seeking idiots, just get married for goodness sake!

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// Iv you're referring to the cake and the b&b - the owners were breaking the law. In this case the couple are trying to change the law. ///

Yes but I don't think that you have got my point or TOGO's even.

It was suggested by some that this couple was trying to prove a point, well perhaps they were.
But what both Togo and myself are suggesting that perhaps those involved in the cake shop and B&B cases were also trying to prove a point, yes we all know that by law the owners of both establishments were breaking the law, but we would have never got to know about it if they had chosen to confront less religiously owned outlets.

But no, those particular gays knew exactly what they were doing.