I don't understand why Civil Partnerships are required any longer. The chronology:
1. Same sex couples could not marry.
2. Civil Partnerships were introduced to allow them to recognise their partnership.
3. Same-sex marriage was made possible.
Er.... that should be it. There is no necessity for two different types of partnership to be available for either same-sex couples or mixed-sex couples. As far as I am aware the differences between the two are minimal:
- A marriage certificate requires just the names of both partners’ fathers, while a civil partnership certificate requires the names of both parents.
- Civil partners cannot call themselves ‘married’ for legal purposes.
- A marriage is ended with divorce by obtaining a decree absolute, while a civil partnership is ended with dissolution by obtaining a dissolution order.
Adultery is not a valid reason to dissolve a civil partnership, but it can be used to divorce.
So no great shakes with any of that that could not be ironed out with a few adjustments to the legislation. Quite why the couple who campaigned for about five years to allow mixed-sex Civil Partnerships makes me question their reasoning.