[Closed] Civil partnerships for all? Way too much time on your hands!

I believe that there's some quite significant legal differences. I might be interested in a civil partnership whereas I'm not particularly interested in marriage.

If they remove the need for shagging from civil partnerships then that's a good idea. A method of two people forming a partnership to protect themselves from inheritance tax without exchanging body fluids is entirely reasonable.

Funnily enough the only gay couple I knew always felt they were second class citizens because they weren't allowed to be married only civil partners - they had kids as well - they traded up to marriage as soon as they were allowed

Never understood why they didnt call it marriage in the first place - they should abolish civil partnerships now they can all get married

Civil partnerships for all? Way too much time on your hands

I'm lost for words

And yet you still want to start a discussion about it 😳

I think it would be a lot simpler if there were no legal difference between civil partnerships and marriage. Seems a bit bizarre that there are to be honest.

Miss Steinfeld said while they appreciate that marriage is a "very meaningful social institution for very many couples", it has a "problematic history from the point of view of female-male relations".

"Some might refer to it as a patriarchal social institution," she said.

"Some of that history lingers on for example that marriage certificates still only have space for the fathers of the parties and not the mothers.

"We don't feel comfortable with that and we feel we should have a choice."

Is it me or does his face quite clearly say "Christ not this shit again?"

[img] [/img]

the only thing more pointless than granting the right to 'civil partnersips' to heterosexual couples was granting homosexual ones the right to 'marriage'.

Change can come as a shock to closed-minded people, you'll get used to the idea and maybe even understand the need for it in future.

Until then try to channel your anger into something more productive.

Never understood why they didnt call it marriage in the first place

Because by doing so they would require the clergy to perform the ceremony and, whether you agree with them or not (I don't for the record), quite a few still believe that it's against God's will. It's not right to force one set of personal beliefs on someone else when it's not even your own institution that you're doing that to. They got around it simply by saying that no member of the clergy would have to perform the ceremony if they objected, which seemed like a reasonable compromise. That is what they should have done originally.

I believe that there's some quite significant legal differences

They're semantic. The legal rights conferred are exactly the same. The only thing that differs are the words used to describe them so technically there are 'legal differences' but the spirit of what they intend/result in is identical.

If they remove the need for shagging from civil partnerships then that's a good idea.

Does the law really still require a 'marriage' to be consecrated in order to be recognised? Seriously? I mean I don't know, I guess it's possible but I would have thought that was a Catholic church thing not a UK law thing.

And yet you still want to start a discussion about it

It's called irony and metaphor. Look it up (along with the word patronise, which you will find means when someone talks down to you).

Change can come as a shock to closed-minded people

You misunderstood me. I was in favour of 'gay marriage' in the first place and felt they should have done what they ended up doing in the first instance.

I'm not in favour of sexual politics, or politicking of any kind for that matter, for the sake of sexual politics. It's pointless and wastes time that could otherwise be better used.

Does the law really still require a 'marriage' to be consecrated in order to be recognised? Seriously? I mean I don't know, I guess it's possible but I would have thought that was a Catholic church thing not a UK law thing.

It's not unheard of for sibblings to live as a couple in a shared house. One of them dies and the survivor gets done over by the state for tax. A civil partnership would be an easy fix.

It's not unheard of for sibblings to live as a couple in a shared house. One of them dies and the survivor gets done over by the state for tax. A civil partnership would be an easy fix.

Don't be silly.

Not as it stands, but why not? You should be able to form a life partnership with anyone you like.

Edit: your edit now makes my response seem odd. But your new one doesn't seem to warrant a response. Other than... 😆

I'm with the 'attention whores' unless.. who's financing the lawsuit? Are they lawyers?

What's wrong with a register office union, it's hardly religious, or a good bash and the registrar attends, I went to a great one last summer like that.

Not as it stands, but why not? You should be able to form a life partnership with anyone you like.

You already have a life partnership with your sibling. They're your sibling.

Edit: your edit now makes my response seem odd. But your new one doesn't seem to warrant a response. Other than...

Yeah sorry for that. I read your post and for one second actually thought I better google it and then slapped myself around the face and thought 'don't be silly'.

Because by doing so they would require the clergy to perform the ceremony

No it wouldn't. I got married in a hotel in Scotland. No clergy present. No prayers. No hymns. Just a ceilidh and a good booze up. 😀

Let me guess, this pair of wretched attention whotes haven't got children have they.

What an ignorant thing to say. What if they can't have children, are they now worthless in your eyes?

By the way I'm pretty sure they talked about bringing up their child when they were on the R4 news.

So, making sweeping generalisations and jumping to conclusions. Make a you look, well, all attention whorey.

Do you have children, we need to know so as we can all jump to conclusions. Maybe you're not getting enough sleep, kids pestering you or something.

BTW, just how is Dave these days anyway. You still see him much?

No it wouldn't. I got married in a hotel in Scotland. No clergy present.

You had the option to do that but you also had the right to get married in a church and have the clergy perform the ceremony. That you didn't was your choice.

This was always the big issue with gay marriage; you can't demand someone to act against their conscience and faith when it's actually their job to uphold that conscience and faith even if you're own position is that you don't believe in any of it yourself.

Exempting those that felt they couldn't peform such a ceremony was so simply I am surpsied it wasn't done initially.

Do you have children, we need to know so as we can all jump to conclusions. Maybe you're not getting enough sleep, kids pestering you or something.

Yeah you hit the nail on the head there. Sorry, you're right. I shouldn't have made that point. Was uncalled for. For the record, yes, it's been a tough few weeks with the kids. As for Dave, no idea, I never saw him again. What might have been had I not chosen which side of the bed to lie in.

You already have a life partnership with your sibling. They're your sibling.

*and associated stuff

Yes is the answer to your first question OP.

Not as far as the tax man* is concerned. That's the only feature that differentiates people in a life partnership. I can't see why people who don't shagging are excluded.

Well it's an interesting perspective (as I originally wrote but then deleted). You could just as easily argue though that no one should be allowed the rights and recognitions of marriage. Maybe you could make a case for abolishing it altogether?

I hope they win. I'm not massively keen on the concept of 'marriage' given the historical and religious baggage but a civil partnership appeals.

GrahamS is married 😯

2016 really sucks 🙁

Ah see what you mean geetee.

Yeah I was always of the opinion that teh Gays should be allowed to get "married" and call it "marriage" - just like I did - but if the church decided they didn't need the extra revenue then they should be excused from any legal obligation to do so.

Still not very fair but avoid a stupid two-tier system of marriage or partnership.

Maybe you could make a case for abolishing it altogether?

GrahamS is married 😯

2016 really sucks 🙁

I think there is a counselling service available. 😉

Strange thing ive noticed is most hetro couples in a partnership or marrige are not happy, bickering and jealousy from both, yet those who have made the decision to marry because theyre gay or lesbian always seem happier in their relationship with each other.

"Some of that history lingers on for example that marriage certificates still only have space for the fathers of the parties and not the mothers.

I get annoyed by shit like that as well, the form used when applying for a passport is my pet peeve. Supposedly having to get it signed by an "upstanding member of society like a policemen or a priest" Pandering to some middle class Midsomer fantasy that a chap needs to have gone to the rights school to be a good chap, but a housewife or a joiner and the rest of us we are not good enough to sign a ****ing form.

Clearly these days there are pretty strong anti discrimination laws, but the real practice of equality in the fabric of bureaucracy constantly fails.

Strange thing ive noticed is most hetro couples in a partnership or marrige are not happy, bickering and jealousy from both, yet those who have made the decision to marry because theyre gay or lesbian always seem happier in their relationship with each other.

My cousin is gay and she is divorced.

But yeah, I know what you mean. I suspect there is a bit of selection bias at the moment, as presumably a reasonable proportion of gays who are married now are people who felt strongly about it because they were in committed relationships and found the previous restrictions prohibiting.

Whereas for straight people marriage is often something that people just sort of fall into after being together for a certain time.

Clearly these days there are pretty strong anti discrimination laws, but the real practice of equality in the fabric of bureaucracy constantly fails.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Whereas for straight people marriage is often something that people just sort of fall into after being together for a certain time.

There is a lot of research that shows that the happiest people of all are those that are childless and didn't want children. The unhappiest are those that are childless but did want children. The third and fourth lot sit somewhere in between.

If same sex couples in marriage end up being happier as a group compared to their heterosexual peers, I suspect it will be because this reason.

Children put a hell of a strain on a marriage or indeed any relationship. Honestly there but for the grace of god goes my marriage and my not being convicted of child brutality. The line between those that do and those that don't (beat their children) is pretty bloody thin.

One of them dies and the survivor [s]gets done over by the state for tax[/s] pays tax just like everyone else

FIFY

Scottish marriage certificates have mother and father details if that matters to them...

As for the differences I believe the main one is that a civil partnership doesn't require a ceremony. Also adultery isn't a ground for dissolution.

Presumably there are perceived differences otherwise some same sex couples would not continue to use that route...

hope they win. I'm not massively keen on the concept of 'marriage' given the historical and religious baggage but a civil partnership appeals.

Me too. Dont see why my distrust of religion should potentially have a negative effect on my familly. Mind you its a loads of pseudo religious bullshit as far as I can see, goes far beyond marriage though.

If you want to own property with your sibling or any one else without paying inheritance tax it is perfectly possible to do so without a civil partnership a joint tenancy or trust would achieve the same result.

From Memory a unconsomethinged marriage is voidable not void . So it is a ground for dissolution if one party wants but valid otherwise.

I've been in a monogamous heterosexual relationship for more than thirty years. I'd like the option of a civil partnership, we'd not get married though.

I'm missing something.

Are Registry Office weddings in England not available? Just confused at some of the folk above ruling out marriage as they aren't religious.

Not sure I really understand the difference.

What is it that makes civil partnership appealing, but not marriage?
Once you take the religious aspect out of it (as we did) isn't it very much the same thing?

I'm (sort of)in favour too. Just like sweepy, 30 yr+, stable relationship. Wills and inheritance are a pain without marriage, but if we haven't seen the inclination to marry before now, we're unlikely to ever. Pragmatically CP would be more of a simplifier for the legal side of things rather than meaningful as a ceremony.

Idealogically, though, my view that the state should just get out of the marriage business altogether, it shouldn't be any business of the state to recognise, reward or penalise any particular domestic or sexual relationship. If churches want to carry on doing them, well and good, same for any other folk who would like to draw up their own version.

Once you take the religious aspect out of it (as we did) isn't it very much the same thing?

You cannot take religon out of something that is based on religious views

[quote=anagallis_arvensis ]

Once you take the religious aspect out of it (as we did) isn't it very much the same thing?

You cannot take religon out of something that is based on religious views

Hmmm then maybe the difference is that I don't think of it as inherently religious?

After all, forms of marriage existed long before any religions got their hands on them.
And plenty of other animals choose life partners too.

I want a civil partnership, I don't want a ceremony or vows. All the reasons put forward by bigots for gays not deserving 'marriage' and having to have a civil partnership instead, that's why I don't want to get married.

I want a civil partnership, I don't want a ceremony or vows

But the ceremony and vows part is entirely optional?
And likewise many people have a ceremony and vows for a civil partnership.

I don't get it.

I hope they win. I'm not massively keen on the concept of 'marriage' given the historical and religious baggage but a civil partnership appeals.

Neither myself or my partner want to get married. We don't see the point in it and don't want all the stress and expense of it all. We couldn't do with family telling us what to do, how to do it and who to invite. Doing it in secret or abroad woukd just cause family divisions, again we don't see any reason to it.

However legally should something happen to one of us it could be a nightmare sorting thing out because we are not married.

We would like to be legally viewed as a couple without having to go down the marriage route.

I do also see marriage as a relgious thing as well. That is from my upbringing where to be married is to be married infront if God etc.
I know that is not the only way now(registry wedding for example) but that notion still stays in my mind.

Don't know if any of that makes sense.

Basically, yes I think its a good idea.

You do know that marriage pre-dates the church and that you and your partner don't have to have a big family get-together?

I don't get it.

I suspect it comes down to prejudice - those strongly prejudicial towards religion and establishment don't want to engage with something they see as being part of that mechanism.

The only 'actual' difference between CP and marriage is the use of the work marriage and civil partnership.

But the cultural diffrence could be much bigger, especially if you're pre-disposed against those mechanisms of oppression (state and religion).

I don't get it.

I don't think you are [i]going[/i] to get it Graham, and thats OK we all have our own ideas.
For me the whole concept of marriage is somehow tainted- The religious aspect, the pompous attitude of the registry office, the historical 'goods and chattels' outlook where you pretty much owned your wife, the 'it's too good for the gays attitude that still exists in some places. It all adds up to an institution that I want no part of.
But I would like the option of legal recognition of three decades of commitment.
Your marriage was, and is obviously very important to you and that is really great but its not what we want.

The only 'actual' difference between CP and marriage is the use of the work marriage and civil partnership.

I don't think you are going to get it Graham, and thats OK we all have our own ideas.

Yeah I'm absolutely not (for once) trying to be argumentative.
You are fully entitled to your ideas, I'm only poking at them to try to understand them.

It sounds like it comes down to the "baggage" thing.

I don't see any of that as an aspect of "marriage", I see it as an aspect of "religious marriage".

To me it's like: some pubs don't let in women or gays. I don't respond to that by not going to the pub, I respond to it by not going to [i]those[/i] pubs.

something that is based on religious views

which based on a biological instinct for monogamy

which based on a biological instinct for monogamy

You do know that marriage pre-dates the church

You do know that sky faries pre date the church and christianity?

which based on a biological instinct for monogamy

Could you explain this in detail?

I don't think you are going to get it Graham, and thats OK we all have our own ideas.
For me the whole concept of marriage is somehow tainted- The religious aspect, the pompous attitude of the registry office, the historical 'goods and chattels' outlook where you pretty much owned your wife, the 'it's too good for the gays attitude that still exists in some places. It all adds up to an institution that I want no part of.
But I would like the option of legal recognition of three decades of commitment.
Your marriage was, and is obviously very important to you and that is really great but its not what we want.

Well put, it's how I feel. I've always felt like this and it's difficult to put into words.

I think we established pretty clearly that the problem people have with 'marriage' versus a CP is cultural.

If you argue that you think marriage is wrong as an institution (rather than just not wanting to do it out of preference) based on outdated cultural associations, (because it's just not like that anymore; marriage is not a means of either cultural or gender subjgation), then that's a biggoted view and makes you no different to someone who argues that homosexuality is wrong for the same reason.

The ONLY differences between marriage and CP are the issue of annulment based on infidelity, and that you don't need to have a ceremony to enter into a CP whereas you still do with marriage; even if it is a civil wedding, there is a ceremony with words spoken. These can be any words you like, but they are still 'vows' made to each other. Interestingly, if you opt for a civil wedding, you are specifically precluded from using anything with a religious connotation. I found this out when the registra required me to share with him what I was planning to read at a friends wedding so that he could make sure there were no references to God or similar.

While I understand the aversion to the cultural association with marriage I don't think it's rational. There's just no evidence to supoprt that view from an objective perspective. Such a strongly held belief/aversion is thus not unlike religion in that sense. Culture and religion are two sides of the same coin; it's a 'belief system' built on he codification of norms, principles and values and by which we makes sense of the world. To some extent it's choice but in many respects its not. We are 'bathed' in culture and you can't be bathed in it without feeling its effects, even if, like many people here have chosen to do with religion (Myself included), you end up rejecting it.

Culture is a classic example of systems theory as applied to society in that regard.

But what it important to accept is that whatever issue you have with marriage versus CP, the actual difference, outside of culture, is zero. They result is indentical outcomes legally speaking.

Well other than the other differences!

Well other than Venereal disease being grounds for annulment or a marriage but not a civil partnership and adultery ground for divorce but not ending a civil partnership I'm struggling to see what practical differences there actually are?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

OP: makes troll thread but calls other people 'wretched attention whores'. Is that irony or just hypocrisy?

OP: makes troll thread but calls other people 'wretched attention whores'. Is that irony or just hypocrisy?

Possible both but if you don't care to join in the debate then that's your perogative.

If you argue that you think marriage is wrong as an institution (rather than just not wanting to do it out of preference) based on outdated cultural associations, (because it's just not like that anymore; marriage is not a means of either cultural or gender subjgation), then that's a biggoted view and makes you no different to someone who argues that homosexuality is wrong for the same reason.

I don't want to get married for those reasons, however, I have no issues with other people doing whatever they like.

Surely that stands my objection apart from those who stand on the premise they wish to deny an option to someone else?

Surely that stands my objection apart from those who stand on the premise they wish to deny an option to someone else?

Yes it does, I agree.

But the argument you've made is based on the the same premise as the following statement:

"I've got no problem with homosexuality; if other people want to engage in that practise that's their choice, but I think it's wrong."

If you think that it's OK for this person to hold that view; if you don't judge them badly because of it, then there's no problem.

But if you think that they are wrong in their view, or if you judge them harshly and seek to marginalise them because of it, then that's where the problems arise.

No, it's my prerogative. 😉

I can't really be arsed to get into it but if I was to show a similar level of respect to the opinions of others as you did in your OP I'd probably say that your last post was utter drivel.

Edit: post before last now

Claiming that people who don't like the institution of marriage are the same as those who say homosexuality is wrong was particularly stupid.

Claiming that people who don't like the institution of marriage are the same as those who say homosexuality is wrong was particularly stupid.

No that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that if you're objection is based simply on cultural associations, rather than objective evidence, then you're holding a view with is ostensibly based on prejudice, not objectivity. And yes I'm using a very contentious analolgy to demonstrate the point, but the point still stands. It's a good example of the unconscious bias we all suffer from in some way and also highlights the problem with using 'equality' as an argument for making decisions or judgements.

By objective evidence (for marriage being a 'bad' thing in some way), I mean for example 'I don't like marriage because it requires that the wife is subserviant to the husband', which used to, objectively, be the case and as such would be a justifiable reason to stand against it, either pesronally or in protest.

But has long since stopped being a real issue and it's just not bjectively correct to say that marriage is an oppressive institution used to subjugate or control people through hegemony.

It's fine to chose not to want to do and fine to conclude that it's 'not for you'. The equivalent argument (using the theme I already introduced), from a pure reason and logic perspective is 'I'm not gay so therefore don't want to enter into gay sexual activity'. But that's a whole league different to a statement that then adds '...because it's wrong', to the end.

I don't want to get married for those reasons, however, I have no issues with other people doing whatever they like

^^Completely agree with this, and perhaps more saliently, so does my partner!

because it's just not like that anymore; marriage is not a means of either cultural or gender subjgation

It may well not be in many modern contexts, and I'm sure many contemporary marriages are free from patriarchal subjugation, however you can't simply wipe the historical plate clean and pretend that hundreds of years of institutional context can simply disappear over night.

For sure we live in much more gender unbiased and enlightened times, but it was only in the late 1980s and early 1990s that many European countries changed their laws regarding marital rape.

Many of us will still have older married relatives who 'tied the knot' under very different circumstances, and marriage in many countries remains a very different institution, (especially for the females concerned), than what we have come to understand as a modern non-religious marriage in the UK

you can't simply wipe the historical plate clean and pretend that hundreds of years of institutional context can simply disappear over night.

however you can't simply wipe the historical plate clean and pretend that hundreds of years of institutional context can simply disappear over night.

This is very true. I agree 100% and it is the definition of the cultural issues that people have with marriage that I was referring to.

Cultural norms and values still linger, even if they are outdated and, objectively, wrong. It is why some people still harbour prejudice against homosexuality for example.

I'm not even saying someone is objectively wrong for hanging on to their view that marriage is a means of supression because it always was. Just that you can't hold that view and then in the next sentence castigate someone for holding on to their homophobia, their racism, their chauvanism etc without then becoming a hypocrite.

You had the option to do that but you also had the right to get married in a church and have the clergy perform the ceremony. That you didn't was your choice.

That's not true: clergy can and do refuse to marry heterosexual couples, for example the Catholic church refusing to re-marry divorcees (until recently, anyway).

The ONLY differences between marriage and CP are the issue of annulment based on infidelity

I have to say, as a liberal hand-wringing do-gooder, I'm struggling with this one. A marriage need be no more than a registrar in an office with two witnesses. Whilst there is undoubtedly historical and cultural baggage, surely the best response is to not live according to those outmoded values.

eh? Relevance?

Reference to the couple mentioned in the OP.
Some people may well not wish to participate in the social and cultural institution of marriage because of the historical legacy of that institution. Therefore they would prefer Civil Partnership as an alternative.

Not necessarily saying I agree with them - just that I can see their argument.

you can't simply wipe the historical plate clean and pretend that hundreds of years of institutional context can simply disappear over night.

Possibly not - but it can disappear from [i]my[/i] marriage.

I guess there are two ways to deal with it really: be part of change and evolution in that institution or go for a different institution.

From my understanding of what has been said here it sounds like some people would prefer to take the second option, which is fair enough (if not a little ironic, given that CPs exist because people wanted to get married).

You do know that marriage pre-dates the church
You do know that sky faries pre date the church and christianity?

What Grum said and finally we should have equality in law irrespective of sexualityIE none of us should be banned form something because of who we ****. That means gay people and straight people need to be able to pick all options form civil partnership to marriage

Just that you can't hold that view and then in the next sentence castigate someone for holding on to their homophobia, their racism, their chauvanism etc without then becoming a hypocrite.

I see what you're saying, but from my perspective it's more nuanced.

sexism, racism and homophobia are beliefs/discriminatory opinions, whereas marriage is an 'institution' with many negative connotations inherited over the years.
Whilst these still exist - [in any guise e.g. arranged marriage, forced marriage / the wedding the parents always wanted for their princess etc] then the 'institute' of marriage will have a tarnished image for some.

This does not in anyway mean that all marriages are tarnished, or that people who will not marry themselves take a dim view of friends and family that do get married - on the contrary, despite my own parent's appalling marriage I'm more than happy to celebrate the union of my friends however they [u]choose [/u]to do it!

I do agree that marriage is changing and thankfully changing for the better, but I'm not sure that recognising that the institute of 'marriage' in and of itself still has some issues, is the same as being discriminatory to certain people.

Actually its a very good idea and something they have been doing in France for years. I think its discriminatory to allow civil partnerships only for same sex couples. Also civil partnerships could be a route for legally binding pre-nups which is something long overdue in the UK.

@Digby, I'm curious as to why you think marriage is chaning for the better, divorce is at an all time record high or is the fact that its easier to get out of a bad marriage your point ?

That means gay people and straight people need to be able to pick all options form civil partnership to marriage

If we agree that CP and marriage are - legally - essentially the same, then the choice is reduced to semantics, surely?

I do prefer the system in many European counties, where the marriage is a purely civil arrangement, with the option to have a ceremony in a church if you wish.

@Digby, I'm curious as to why you think marriage is chaning for the better, divorce is at an all time record high or is the fact that its easier to get out of a bad marriage your point ?

Marital rape was outlawed in 1991...

If we agree that CP and marriage are - legally - essentially the same, then the choice is reduced to semantics, surely?

Yes if we agree they are the same thing then yes they are the same thing, problem is we dont all agree they are the same and they do have some differences

Legally, there are some minor differences but they are not being advanced as an argument for CP to be available to hetero couples.

I do prefer the system in many European counties, where the marriage is a purely civil arrangement, with the option to have a ceremony in a church if you wish.

Don't we have that here?

Marital rape was outlawed in 1991...

Marriage and civil partnership is very different in terms of divorce / seperation afaik.

@Digby, I'm curious as to why you think marriage is chaning for the better, divorce is at an all time record high or is the fact that its easier to get out of a bad marriage your point ?

That's two different issues even though the latter point is, ironically, a corollary of the first. Marriage no longer acts to subjugate either party, (the argument that marriage has changed for the better) which is a good thing, and the proof of that is that people are more willing/able to get out of a marriage that no longer works for them (the divorce rate doesn’t prove that marriage is a bad thing).
What would be interesting to see is whether the original data that showed empirically how marriage was good for me and bad for women has changed. It used to be (the studies I read were from the 70s) that mental health, when measured, was highest for men and lowest for women when they were married but the exact opposite when not.

fair question jambalaya ...

I think my view that marriage is changing for the better is because of the attitudes of the people entering into it. i.e. they are entering into it as a more equal 'partnership' ... there is less context of chatel/ownership/obey/subservience/patriarchal/primary carer/producer of male heirs/

As GrahamS stated in response to my comment about the historical context of marriage:

Possibly not - but it can disappear from my marriage.

Your comments though do take the debate onto another level:

Much of the discussion here has been about the ability and appropriateness of peoples legal right to either marry or have a CP

Whether marriage is changing or the CP option is better for the long term 'divorce' statistics or more importantly the long term happiness of the people (especially any children) involved I really don't know ...

Don't we have that here?

No - I'm saying that churches are not allowed to marry people. The ceremony is effectively a blessing.

Yes but that is nothing to do with marriage imo, that was fixing the rape law.

You don't think that a husband was allowed to rape his wife has anything to do with marriage?

Marriage and civil partnership is very different in terms of divorce / seperation afaik.

No - I'm saying that churches are not allowed to marry people. The ceremony is effectively a blessing.

That's ostensibly how it works here. The ceremony has nothing to do with conferring the legal status. You're not married in a church until you sign the registry.

Marital rape was outlawed in 1991...

Yes but that is nothing to do with marriage imo, that was fixing the rape law.

Hale's statement [in his 1736 legal treatise Historia Placitorum Coronæ or History of the Pleas of the Crown, where he wrote that such a rape could not be recognized since the wife "hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract."]in History of the Pleas of the Crown was not supported by any judicial authority but was believed to be a logical consequence of the laws of marriage and rape as understood at the time. Marriage gave conjugal rights to a spouse, and marriage could not be revoked except by private Act of Parliament—it therefore seemed to follow that a spouse could not legally revoke consent to sexual intercourse, and if there was consent there was no rape.

Still don't get it. What on earth has previous forms of marriage got to do with how things are today, and why would anyone let such an irrelevance affect their decision making?
It's like not drinking coke because it used to have cocaine in it.