Are You Woke?

[Stargazer]

The latest is that heterosexual couples have been granted their wish to be like same sex couples in being able to have a civil partnership. What is the problem with marriage which does not have to be a religious ceremony, can be Registry Office. So the binding commitment to one another is what counts. Choose your partner on Sale or Return possibly?

[jackthehat]

///what if you wanted to 'downsize' ? ///

To what?

[JimF]

Yes it is:

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/community-and-life-events/births-deaths-and-marriages/register-office-0

[Old_Geezer]

I'm better than woke: I am awake.

There is no necessity for two different types of partnership, indeed there is no necessity for even one type of ritual nonsense. Either a) governments and authorities could decide to treat all equally thus removing any unfair advantages granted on complying, or b) one needs simply to fill in the relevant form nominating a favoured individual to get the unfair advantages presently applied after marriage.

Meanwhile many don't like the traditional marriage and an alternative that gives them the same rights is no bad thing. A small step in the right direction.

[New Judge]

//"When Same-sex marriage became permissible under the Law Civil Partnerships should have been scrubbed from the Statute Books; to take effect from the same date. "

- Why? //

Because they were introduced to solve a particular problem - that of same-sex couples being unable to have their relationship recognised in law. With the introduction of same-sex marriages that problem no longer existed and it is unnecessary to have two methods of legal recognition.

//'upgrade' ? what if you wanted to 'downsize' ? //

You wouldn't be able to because CPs would be abolished. They would only be retained until those who had taken advantage of them - and had not "upgraded" or had them dissolved - were no longer around.

[sevenOP]

Seems jackthehat has the seemingly endemic affliction that is prevalent on this forum: the ability to only ask questions and totally ignore questions asked of you.

Old_Geezer, you are welcome to your opinion and as one of the most open minded on this forum I appreciate much of what you add, but marriage=family is the very core of orthodox civilization and they would even (reluctantly) give up 'property' before marriage=family.

New Judge... "Because they were introduced to solve a particular problem - that of same-sex couples being unable to have their relationship recognised in law. With the introduction of same-sex marriages that problem no longer existed and it is unnecessary to have two methods of legal recognition." --- many people would rather have a Contract than 'marriage' which they associate with Religion ( mind control to some)

//'upgrade' ? what if you wanted to 'downsize' ? //
was actually an attempt at humour, to counter jt-hat clinical, dehumanizing 'upgrade'.

[douglas9401]

I'm not sure I want to be mistaken for a ghetto chile, thank you.

I'm aware but not a resident of Harlem. I had enough trouble with 'on fleek'.

[jackthehat]

I haven't seen that I was asked a question....

Would you care to repeat it for me?

[Old_Geezer]

Families do not rely on marriage.
Outdated rituals are cores we could dispense with.

[sevenOP]

jth , certainly @ 21:12 Wed 01st Jan 2020 ( for clarity it is, 'Why?' )

[jackthehat]

I explained why in the remainder of my post.

[sevenOP]

jth- so your explanation?/ EXCUSE to Why? is "And then 'marriage for all' or cohabiting outside of marriage ought to have been the only options."

Grandfather Rights then NO choice. Nice.

[jackthehat]

What are you waffling on about?

Pre-2005 the choices were marriage (for heterosexuals) and/or cohabitation (for hetero and homosexuals).
Post-2005 the choices were marriage (for heterosexuals) and/or cohabitation (for hetero and homosexuals) and/or Civil Partnerships (for homosexuals).
Post-2014 the choices were marriage (for heterosexuals and homosexuals ) and/or cohabitation (for hetero and homosexuals) and/or Civil Partnerships (for homosexuals).
In 2019 the choices are marriage (for heterosexuals and homosexuals ) and/or cohabitation (for hetero and homosexuals) and/or Civil Partnerships (for heterosexuals and homosexuals).

I suggest we return to Pre-2005 but with the only 2 options being 'equal marriage' and cohabitation.
I fail to see why that should be at all contentious.

[Khandro]

ladybirder;//Khandro @ 18.00 - not in Brighton & Hove it isn't.//
That is only on a map, if that's where you live, go down to that address & see what is on the sign outside.

[New Judge]

//--- many people would rather have a Contract than 'marriage' which they associate with Religion ( mind control to some)//

I don't believe there are too many people in the UK who associate marriage necessarily with religion. Since marriage and CPs are virtually identical (apart from the minor differences I outlined which are nothing to do with religion) I see absolutely no reason why CPs should remain. If anything it is CPs which are "outdated". The justification for marriage (for those who want it) is still extant. The justification for CPs is not.

[sevenOP]

Jth "I suggest we return to Pre-2005 but with the only 2 options being 'equal marriage' and cohabitation.
I fail to see why that should be at all contentious."

I was under the misapprehension posters read the comments, especially on a not too lengthy thread.

i.e. - New Judge... "Because they were introduced to solve a particular problem - that of same-sex couples being unable to have their relationship recognised in law.two methods of legal recognition." --- ********************many people would rather have a Contract than 'marriage' which they associate with Religion ( mind control to some) *********************************

It is called OPTIONS jth, or choice, and some people appreciate it, rather than that CHOICE ending at an arbitrary date and then NO choice. ( grandfather rights then tough luck youngster!)

[ladybirder]

I went to a wedding there in 2015 Khandro. The invitation which I still have says Brighton Registry Office. I just got out of the taxi and went inside but can't remember what the building looked like or noticed the sign. I've found some photos on my computer which were taken outside after the wedding which shows a white building but no sign showing on any of the photos. I'll have a look next time I'm down there now, out of curiosity.

[sevenOP]

New Judge, is God mentioned in Civil Partnership or Register Service? How about oaths or 'swearing' ie ANY mention of God?

The marriage/God association with marriage is just one reason for wanting CP and whether you think CPs are "outdated" and the justification for marriage (for those who want it) is still extant, does not mean the justification for CPs is not.

Your use of the word ' justification' is puzzling to me.







/

[pixie374]

I agree that the more choices there are, the better. Neither would be for me... but each to their own.
Marriage has always been a religious, misogynistic type of ceremony... and it is not surprising it has become unpopular.
I wouldn't make a Civil Partnership the same at all, but make sure it was different to allow people different choices and a bit more modernised.
I don't think there is any more "justification" for it, than there is for marriage. But I can understand that people don't like unfairness, and if heterosexuals can get married and homosexuals can be "partners", that everyone should have the same choices.

[pixie374]

Ps... "woke" doesn't seem to have anything to do with knowing anything... but it means giving the correct answer...

[Old_Geezer]

Judging from one's experience of where the word "woke" is used, the 'last thing' it means is giving the correct answer !