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

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

Ok, so a hypothetical scenario (I don't have time to try and find any case law)

Let's say a marriage in the 1980s was going through some difficulties. The couple were in 'separate beds' and 'not speaking'. Things reach a head when the husband come home drunk and forces his wife to have sex. i.e. without her 'consent'. The law at that time however deemed that by being married the wife had by default given consent. In other words she did not have the legal right to choice what to do with her own body and that by being married, she was in effect a 'possession' of her husband's

My point being that the historical legacy of marriage until recently had negative connotations in law that a wife did not have 'body autonomy'

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.

Nevertheless, clergy are allowed to perform marriage ceremonies. In a discussion about cultural/ historical baggage I would argue that it's an important difference with some other European countries.

So some people are allowed to perform marriages. Maybe people should just 'get over it'?

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.

I've been to quite a few weddings in the last three years, church and non-church, and there's such a range of services I understand why you might think there should be an option somewhere. Was a bit surprised by the Devon vicar who did a sermon mostly about the fact that the couple could have children now they were married. The 'obey' vow seems to have gone but not the ownership aspect, entirely - 'you may now kiss your bride' is still popular but always seems properly anachronistic.

So some people are allowed to perform marriages. Maybe people should just 'get over it'?

It doesn't particularly bother me: I was married by a vicar who happens to be a family friend.

But I can see why people might object to it, given its history.

So is it the act of ceremony that is problematic? You can always just have the requisite witnesses and no one else. I don't know, but I am pretty sure a CP would still also require witnesses and given you have to travel somewhere to do it (i.e. sign into the agreement), that's still a ceremony. The only difference is that you wouldn't be exchanging vows.

I just know that if we got married now, my gran (87) and his parents (60 going on 80) would be thoroughly relieved - and that really pisses me off.

That's a very good point - I've frequently been asked by older and elderly relatives 'when are you going to make an honest woman of her?'

The subtext being that if a woman is 'living over the brush' then she is somehow a 'fallen woman' i.e. dishonorable and tainted as she is having sexual relations outside of marriage and therefore 'living in sin' - the only solution being to marry her and make her honorable.

Old fashion views perhaps, but they are still perpetuated today as a way of men trying to control, label and demean a woman's sexuality.

I am pretty sure a CP would still also require witnesses and given you have to travel somewhere to do it (i.e. sign into the agreement), that's still a ceremony.

Yep, you still need to sign the register, still need two witnesses, and still need to go to an "approved place" to do it.

https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/weddings-and-civil-partnership-ceremonies

So as you say the only apparent difference (in process) between a civil partnership and a civil marriage seems to be that for some bizarre reason [i]"You must exchange some formal wording if you’re getting married"[/i] but apparently not if you are entering civil partnership.

So some people are allowed to perform marriages. Maybe people should just 'get over it'?

You are clearly one of the great thinkers of our age

It has been said before.

There seems to be some misunderstanding of how a CofE marriage fits in. As the CofE is the established church, you, subject to the church's rules re divorce etc., have the right to get married (and have a funeral) in Church and that ceremony is recognised by the state as a marriage. This contrasts with the continent where those countries whose law is based on the Napoleanic code only recognise a state wedding. You can have a marriage ceremony in a church but the state only recognises it when you go through the civil ceremony. (Note this is not a civil partnership but a marriage under civil law so equivalent to getting married before a registrar here).

@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 ?

Actually the divorce rate is at a 40 year low so quite the reverse - see [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12011714/Divorce-rate-at-lowest-level-in-40-years-after-cohabitation-revolution.html ]here[/url]

He is never wrong and now wrong twice on the same thread 😯
~is excited to see the reason given by Mr "only ever wrong three or four times"

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

Dont want to get into a big debate but it suprises me that people think you can separate marriage from the church. Why can my family not have the same protections as another without having to get married. Now I'll be honest its not something I will ever lose sleep over but it does bug me. Why should our societies values think that marriage is so valuable as to gain a tax break? Its bizare to me. To think I cannot have a positive family life without a pseudo religious but of paper and a worthless promise..

Dont want to get into a big debate but it suprises me that people think you can separate marriage from the church.

Registrar & two witnesses...

[quote=anagallis_arvensis ]Dont want to get into a big debate but it suprises me that [b]people think you can separate marriage from the church[/b]. Why can my family not have the same protections as another without having to get married. Now I'll be honest its not something I will ever lose sleep over but it does bug me. Why should our societies values think that marriage is so valuable as to gain a tax break? Its bizare to me. To think I cannot have a positive family life without a pseudo religious but of paper and a worthless promise..Of course they do - because it can be.

Explain? I cannot see it as anything other than a religous construct

Why was gay marriage such a big deal for people if marriage is not religious?

Because it excluded people for no reason.

It was illogical and discriminatory to prevent people from participating in a marriage.

The religious element is optional for everyone.

I too think civil partnerships are an irrelevance, now civil marriage is open to all.

but it suprises me that people think you can separate marriage from the church

why on earth couldn't you?

I got married last year, not in a church, not a religious ceremony, we're both Atheists, we are married, how is that in any way not separate from the church?

I'm not well informed enough to know the answers to the below to this so hopefully someone can explain and educate me....

Is this discussion specifically about Christian marriage in this country?
How does it work if you are Jewish/Hindu/Sikh/Pastafarian/Muslim/$INSERTRELIGIONHERE?

Presumably there are not several different kinds of married (for each religion) in the eyes of the law/state so I was under the impression you get married, but you can choose to have the ceremony performed by a person of your choice, who may or may not also have some religious standing, but the end result is still a (non-religion specific) 'Marriage' ?

In which case I find it hard to work out why there is such a thing as Civil Partnership and Marriage, if the Marriage is not tied to a religion then surely they are the same thing in all but word? (or should be!)

I also can't see how there can or should be any restriction* based on gender, sexuality, family, or requirement to reproduce on either a Marriage or a Civil Partnership, if we must have both then they should both be open to anyone?

*obviously you can't compel a religious person to perform a ceremony if it's against their beliefs but since you have the option of getting married in a non-religious way then is that a non-issue?

Because it excluded people for no reason.

Why was gay marriage such a big deal for people if marriage is not religious?

Basically it was just another thing they like to say was there and only they could decide what we did with it. As usual the evidence doesn't support this view but that doesn't bother them

But the sky fariests didnt want gay marriage because marriage is a religious construct surely?

wasn't the issue that they didn't want to be compelled to perform a ceremony that was against their belief?

which is rather different to saying that people cant 'get married' as otherwise would they not be laying claim to the entire concept of 'marriage' which is a bit big headed being that other religions also have 'marriage' and it also pre-dates current organised religions.

I can understand them objecting to being force to perform their ceremony, but not objection to the entire concept.

^ I guess that is the nub of the issue isn't it, that they treid to claim ownership of the concept of marriage in general?

EDIT - cross post with what Junky said I think

because marriage is a religious construct surely?

I can understand them objecting to being force to perform their ceremony, but not objection to the entire concept.

The civil partnership for all is an interesting question. Why should people who a shagging each other get tax breaks (and other faff reduction policies) that platonic friends don't?

The civil partnership for all is an interesting question. Why should people who a shagging each other get tax breaks (and other faff reduction policies) that platonic friends don't?

I thought we'd agreed there was no [i]requirement [/i]for sexy-fun-times?

which makes your point even more valid!

I think there is a requirement for [i]potential[/i] sexy-fun time, hence no brother sister CPs.

(I con't know the actual rules so could be wrong on some/all of this)

Clarity on that would be interesting, does that mean certain people in biological or traumatically induced situations would be genuinely not allowed to either get Married or form a Civil Partnership?

I certainly wasn't asked at any point if I was intending to get squelchy with Mrs A before being allowed to marry.

Why stop at two folk? Make it three/four/many. If there's no link to sex/procreation then why stop at siblings and not include offspring? I can see an issue with tax-collection etc though. Maybe it would just be more sensible to do away with these altogether.

Why stop at two folk? Make it three/four/many. If there's no link to sex/procreation then why stop at siblings and not include offspring?

Why stop at humans? 😕

Well, from a tax/benefits point of view we currently exclude non-human species.

Why stop at humans?

consent

All of this just continues to highlight some of the oddities of some social constructs and law doesn't it!

consent

What if your cat really loves you?

I mean... someone.

What if [i]someone[/i]'s cat really loves [i]them[/i].

I, and i think I speak for us all here, always saw you as some sort of pussy magnet

I thought we'd agreed there was no requirement for sexy-fun-times?

I, and i think I speak for us all here, always saw you as some sort of pussy magnet

That's twice in this thread I've had people poking fun at my attractiveness to women.

A man could get a complex 😀

If marriage pre dates religion when was religion invented? Surely it was a different religion thats all?

If marriage pre dates religion when was religion invented? Surely it was a different religion thats all?

Plenty of other animals stick with a partner to raise infants (most birds for example) and some form life-long bonds (e.g. swans, gibbons, wolves, penguins).

It seems quite possible that early humans were doing the same long before they had the mental faculties to start pondering about existence or gods.

^^^

Meow 😉

If marriage pre dates religion when was religion invented? Surely it was a different religion thats all?

In numerous patriarchal cultures, both ancient and modern the concept of marriage [between a man and woman] is tied to the concepts of virtue and paternity. i.e. a man does not wish to spend time and resources helping to rear offspring that are not his own and will not therefore perpetuate his genes. Religion(s) came along later and built upon these ideals, hence the prevalence in history of virgin brides and white dresses etc.

My understanding of the original concept of marriage i.e. 'pair-bonding' was that the public ceremony was both a celebration, affirmation and confirmation of the two people in the presence of their community. i.e. a man should not covet his neighbour's wife as he knows that she 'belongs' to another.

A man could get a complex

would imagine with marriage that in small communities people paor binded way before we had religion - it sems self evident we had children before we had religion whether we pair bonded is just conjecture but it seems likely as it clearly gives the offspring an advantage as two would be providing for it and not one.

Plenty of other animals stick with a partner to raise infants

And plenty of female animals will have sex with multiple males when in heat - the concept known as 'sperm wars'

In other animal groups, the males will fight each other for the females 'favours' ...

Bonobos are apparently very frisky and use sexual contact (both same-sex and opposite-sex) as a form of conflict resolution.

Plenty of other animals stick with a partner to raise infants (most birds for example) and some form life-long bonds (e.g. swans, gibbons, wolves, penguins).
It seems quite possible that early humans were doing the same long before they had the mental faculties to start pondering about existence or gods.

You first point has nothing to do with marriage but is about raising children as a couple. Why do we value marriage but not unmarried couples? ( as a aside dont confuse paor bonded animaks with monogamy)
Your second point is odd. Early humans had the same brains as us why would they not have the mental faculties to ponder where they came from?

Religion(s) came along later

Later than when and when?

Are there tax advantages to getting married?

Now I'm interested.

Why do we value marriage but not unmarried couples?

Because as uncomfortable as it may be, there is a lot of data to suggest that kids do better when brough up by married parents rather than by single parents or co-habiting but unmarried parents. It's demonstrated in both behaviour and exam results.

Its not proved that marriage per se causes this it seems more likely that those who get and remain married are more "stable" than those who dont and this is what causes the "advantage". Its hard to argue a formal ceremony and a licence makes one better able to bring up ones offspring.

Early humans had the same brains as us why would they not have the mental faculties to ponder where they came from?

Meow 😉

Stop it 😳

You first point has nothing to do with marriage but is about raising children as a couple.

No it's about pair-bonding as a biological drive.

"Marriage" (in its many many forms) is just human society trying to name it.

Your second point is odd. Early humans had the same brains as us why would they not have the mental faculties to ponder where they came from?

[img] [/img]

Do other primates have gods? And if they do, do they mate according to what they think those gods want?

Its not proved that marriage per se causes this it seems more likely that those who get and remain married are more "stable" than those who dont and this is what causes the "advantage". Its hard to argue a formal ceremony and a licence makes one better able to bring up ones offspring.

This is of course very true. Correlation is not cause and effect. But if you're the government, and you want to create policy that advances the welfare and achievement of children, particularly to enable social mobility, then you can see why there would be an interest in promoting marriage, or at least a strong stable union within which to bring up children.

If CPs acheive that more readily than marriage because the data shows that for what might well be nothing more than semantic/cultural reasons, people who would otherwise not get married are more likely to form CPs and if that results in kids doing better, then it's got to be worth consideration.

Religion(s) came along later

Later than when and when?

Paleolithic man may well have had deities/totemism and worshiped animals etc, but at that time man had not domesticated animals or argriculture. Therefore the foundations of modern 'society' and ensuing contructs (e.g. Judeo-Christian in the West) had not yet occured.

So I'm going to go out on a limb and say 'Religion came along' sometime between 300,000 and 10,000 years ago.

The evolutionary advantage of ensuring that the offspring you are expending resources nurturing and protecting though will pre-date any concept of organised religion.

Excellent explanation and what I was getting at.

This is of course very true. Correlation is not cause and effect. But if you're the government, and you want to create policy that advances the welfare and achievement of children, particularly to enable social mobility, then you can see why there would be an interest in promoting marriage, or at least a strong stable union within which to bring up children.

So why promote one over the other? Care to show me this data and how its been accounted for educational attainment or socio economic status as just two factors that could be causational?

Graham see that top one [i]Homo sapiens[/i]? They are humans the others are hominids not humans.

. Therefore the foundations of modern 'society' and ensuing contructs (e.g. Judeo-Christian in the West) had not yet occured.

What might those constructs be???

The evolutionary advantage of ensuring that the offspring you are expending resources nurturing and protecting though will pre-date any concept of organised religion.

True but I think that supports my point that marriage is a pointless religous construct (for me, for others it may be very important). Why does the state support mariage over other couples?

What might those constructs be???

exhibit A:

marriage is a pointless religous construct (

I think you've answered your own question there ...

Exactly so why are we arguing? 😀

So why promote one over the other? Care to show me this data and how its been accounted for educational attainment or socio economic status as just two factors that could be causational?

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11084932/Children-raised-by-married-parents-are-better-behaved.html ]Data[/url]

Not sure that says what you think it says.

Opening paragraph

A study published by the Department for Education shows that early education, family income and parents' marital status has a significant bearing on children's behaviour and exam results at 16

Graham see that top one Homo sapiens? They are humans the others are hominids not humans.

My understanding is that [i]Homo sapiens[/i] are [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human ]"modern humans"[/url].
"Early humans" could refer to anything in the genus Homo, cf. [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans ]Archaic_humans[/url].

But whatever, I think you realise it wasn't a taxonomical point.

No early humans would refer to early humans

Not according to the [url= http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species ]Smithsonian Institute Human Origins project[/url] , but what would they know eh?

As I said, it wasn't a taxonomical point. Feel free to replace "early humans" with "our genetic predecessors and their contemporaries" if that makes it clearer for you.

Well this is going well isn't it!

That link talks about early human species so its correct in a sense. But thats different from early humans.
Oh and its taxanomic.

*sigh*

Okay here's some text from the [url= http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/intro-human-evolution ]Introduction to Human Evolution page on the Smithsonian site[/url]:

[b]Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans[/b]. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many [b]early human[/b] species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of [b]early humans[/b], and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.

[b]Early humans[/b] first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. They entered Europe somewhat later, between 1.5 million and 1 million years. Species of modern humans populated many parts of the world much later. For instance, people first came to Australia probably within the past 60,000 years and to the Americas within the past 30,000 years or so. The beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first civilizations occurred within the past 12,000 years.

Seems to me they clearly use the terms "early humans" and "early human species" there. As distinct to "modern humans".

The second paragraph is talking about Homo sapiens is it not? So they are using early human species and early humans to mean different things. The first paragraph is about hominids and the second about Humans. With that condusing tripe on its web site I wouldnt trust them. Its a classic example of why you need to be precise and why we have latin names.

Late to this thread...it's an interesting one, as I see it civil partnerships for heterosexual couples are controversial for some people because they would be seen to weaken the case for marriage.
But marriage is now a very weak institution anyway, especially since no-fault divorce.
I say this as a very bitter brother, whose sister has suffered horribly since her husband left her for another woman and got out of his marriage easier than your average car rental agreement.
The statistics on lower divorce rates aren't historically meaningful since the marriage rate is so historically low in the first place. Many people are not getting married in the first place, but still having children and then splitting up - thirty years ago they would have most likely been married.

[b]badnewz[/b] Difficult and horrible for her, but would you really rather they stayed together in a marriage which fundementally wasn't working, developing years of bitterness and loathing. Perhaps she now be able will meet someone more worthy of her? Marriage is a mutual endeavour, not a sentence. Surely?

I am for the CP availablity - might be something I'd consider with my (female) partner, although marriage would be my preferred option. Perhaps CP could be like a provisional drivers licence?!

badnewz Difficult and horrible for her, but would you really rather they stayed together in a marriage which fundementally wasn't working, developing years of bitterness and loathing. Perhaps she now be able will meet someone more worthy of her? Marriage is a mutual endeavour, not a sentence. Surely?

It's a tough one mate. There were clearly problems in the marriage, so we weren't surprised it ended. But I have a nagging feeling that if marriage was taken more seriously, and harder to get out of, he wouldn't have acted the way he did, in my opinion getting away scot free (he pays child maintenance, but has since had another kid).

I suppose my issue is what a vulnerable position the whole thing put her and my family in, as she couldn't afford the house on her own (I offered to step in but she didn't want that). She now rents nearby, and we are looking at extending our place so she and her kids have the option of moving in at some point. This is the saving fact of the situation, we have our own place, no mortgage, so the option is always there.

Sorry to derail the thread a bit, the situation has been getting to me recently and felt the need to write about it.

not a derailment at all - I think you have to judge marriage and CP by what happens when they go wrong, espescially for the kids. Hope she does ok.

OP is missing one link. For me (and I suspect others) the refusal to get married and this sort of 'CP for all' carry on is largely about winding up religious and sanctimonious friends and relatives. It's far too satisfying to just roll over and let all that go.

But I have a nagging feeling that if marriage was taken more seriously, and harder to get out of, he wouldn't have acted the way he did

The financial side of it is a pita and still arises when you aren't married to your partner (been there, got the T shirt)

You/the state can't force him to stay living with your sister if he wants to be elsewhere. Keeping them together is likely to lead to more harm than good in the long run.

He has behaved badly forcing him to stay with your sister/,making it harder for them to separate. Its hard to see how this has made the situation better

Growing up in a loveless house with an unhappy marriage is unlikely to help kids get positive outcomes.

Its to simplistic [ and wrong] to argue that if every divorced couple stayed together then their kids would have better outcomes.

Its to simplistic [ and wrong] to argue that if every divorced couple stayed together then their kids would have better outcomes.

Absolutely agree!

[based on my own anecdotal and observed experience] I would suggest that in many cases, the married couple who attempt to stay together for the sake of the children when their own relationship has 'broken down irretrievable' are often only delaying the inevitable ... and this often eventually does occur when children are in their teens which can often compound issues for the kids as they [the kids] struggle to use their parents relationship as a reference point for their own emerging sense of the world ...

I case anyone is interested the couple mentioned in the OP lost their case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845