Switch Theme:

Can somebody explain this: heterosexual couple's bid for civil partnership. Court rules against.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

I'm bamboozled to say the least.

here's the full story: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/heterosexual-couples-should-not-be-allowed-civil-partnerships-court-rules

This man and woman have failed in their bid to enter into a civil partnership.

But forgive my naivety, a man and woman can enter into something called marriage, if they want a legally binding partnership?

Or am I wrong?

The people in question are citing discrimination against heterosexual relationships, marriage being too patriarchal etc etc as reasons for wanting a civil partnership.

and now there is talk of MPs getting involved and laws being changed.

But it still makes no sense to me. If anything, a woman in a marriage has better legal protections and rights when it comes to divorce.

I'm advancing in years, and the modern world is confusing the hell out of me

What's going on here? A genuine fight against discrimination or some crackpot scheme?


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

This fight is about the inequality that still exists when it comes to couples of all kinds and the law. Its bonkers when you think about it.

Legal recognition and protections as couples should be open to all. I think the law will change, it really has to.
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Mr. Burning wrote:
This fight is about the inequality that still exists when it comes to couples of all kinds and the law. Its bonkers when you think about it.

Legal recognition and protections as couples should be open to all. I think the law will change, it really has to.


If people don't want the Church of England style wedding, fair enough, but we already have the register office option, the humanist option etc etc

I suspect it's a scheme dreamt up by lawyers to shake down the tax payer for more money!

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Mr. Burning wrote:
This fight is about the inequality that still exists when it comes to couples of all kinds and the law. Its bonkers when you think about it.

Legal recognition and protections as couples should be open to all. I think the law will change, it really has to.


If people don't want the Church of England style wedding, fair enough, but we already have the register office option, the humanist option etc etc

I suspect it's a scheme dreamt up by lawyers to shake down the tax payer for more money!


Its not about weddings!

There should be one application to announce a partnership as official under law. What form that takes should be upto the applicants the law should offer the same rights and protections no matter what the ceremony. Those protections and rights et al should have both partners equal.

The laws surrounding marriage, civil partnerships should be intersecting.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/21 16:55:24


 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut






Lol UK law keeps suprizing me. This seems to be total bonkers. So you guys really can't enter civil partnership, its marriage or no legal connection at all ?

Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while 
   
Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

 oldzoggy wrote:
Lol UK law keeps suprizing me. This seems to be total bonkers. So you guys really can't enter civil partnership, its marriage or no legal connection at all ?


Not quite.

there are just different levels of what is or isn't recognised under UK law.

Civil partnerships are probably in a tier below 'marriage'. Then there's what is/used to be known as 'common law' where partners together for x amount of years gained some rights and protections. That is how I read it, I'm no expert.



   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Civil Partnership grants entirely the same legal protections and privileges as legal marriage, but it is not called marriage and only gay couples can get it.

Gay couples of course can now get married.

Heterosexual couples cannot have civil partnerships. The heterosexual couple in this case want to be "married" in a way that is not called "married".

Common Law marriage has no basis in law and offers no legal rights, but sadly a lot of people think it does and are gravely disappointed when they find out it doesn't.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/21 18:19:32


I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Civil Partnership grants entirely the same legal protections and privileges as legal marriage, but it is not called marriage and only gay couples can get it.

Gay couples of course can now get married.

Heterosexual couples cannot have civil partnerships. The heterosexual couple in this case want to be "married" in a way that is not called "married".

Common Law marriage has no basis in law and offers no legal rights, but sadly a lot of people think it does and are gravely disappointed when they find out it doesn't.


That clears that up then.


Surely most marriages should be civil partnerships. Add you flavour of ceremony and done!

   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Civil Partnership grants entirely the same legal protections and privileges as legal marriage, but it is not called marriage and only gay couples can get it.

Gay couples of course can now get married.

Heterosexual couples cannot have civil partnerships. The heterosexual couple in this case want to be "married" in a way that is not called "married".

Common Law marriage has no basis in law and offers no legal rights, but sadly a lot of people think it does and are gravely disappointed when they find out it doesn't.


Closest I can think is a civil ceremony, no priest. A judge, a registrar, or similar figure with authority can issue a marriage license.
But its still a "wedding" to say...

Its not a church, its a town hall, or other civil building.
Often alot smaller however alot cheaper.

Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





Tornado Alley

My wife and I got married by a judge. In America whether you are in a civil partnership(marriage in all but name) or married the law is the same. Someone take it up the rear end during the divorce, give all their money away every month, and generally lives with very little while the other gets the kids, house, car, and everything you ever worked hard to achieve. Not sure how this is covered in homosexual partnerships but I know no matter what you call it, im screwed if we divorce. does the woman in this case think there is a chance in hell the man would receive alimony?

10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 redleger wrote:
My wife and I got married by a judge. In America whether you are in a civil partnership(marriage in all but name) or married the law is the same. Someone take it up the rear end during the divorce, give all their money away every month, and generally lives with very little while the other gets the kids, house, car, and everything you ever worked hard to achieve. Not sure how this is covered in homosexual partnerships but I know no matter what you call it, im screwed if we divorce. does the woman in this case think there is a chance in hell the man would receive alimony?


In some states. in enlightened states following Napoleonic Code or Spanish law, its community property.
California is of course exempted.

I've yet to see what the point of the action was for.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





Beijing

It seems like they're being deliberately contrary to me. You can already have a marriage with a civil ceremony, no religious connotations at all. Your marriage has all the religious meaning you want to give it. You pick your vows, so if you don't want the woman serving the man, fine. This is a fuss about nothing, I find people moaning about 'the patriarchy' in this manner insufferable.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It seems like they're being deliberately contrary to me. You can already have a marriage with a civil ceremony, no religious connotations at all. Your marriage has all the religious meaning you want to give it. You pick your vows, so if you don't want the woman serving the man, fine. This is a fuss about nothing, I find people moaning about 'the patriarchy' in this manner insufferable.


Alternatively they don't want a marriage. They do however want certain rights under law and the court to recognize those rights.

In the US, if civil partnerships were legal but limited to one group, that would be unconstitutional under the most recent stare decisis.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It seems like they're being deliberately contrary to me. You can already have a marriage with a civil ceremony, no religious connotations at all. Your marriage has all the religious meaning you want to give it. You pick your vows, so if you don't want the woman serving the man, fine. This is a fuss about nothing, I find people moaning about 'the patriarchy' in this manner insufferable.


I can think of quite a few instances when you would want to have the same rights as someone who is married but don't want to be "married".
For example suppose you and your partner own a house and have some kids, and you do want things to be in order when things go wrong somebody dies etc.
You do want to be married some day with a expensive big party with all the fuss and family just not today or this year for all sorts of reasons. This makes civil partnership the ideal solution since you do get the protection, but you can still have a real marriage in the near future even if you are already sort of married for the law for ages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But the case that there is a law that discriminates against a legal sexual preference alone should be reason enough to protest.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/21 20:32:57


Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

The differences between a "marriage" and a "civil partnership" are:

1. Marriage must be conducted in public. Civil partnership can be conducted in private.
2. The marriage certificate must show the fathers' names.
3. A marriage ceremony can contain a religious component. Civil partnership must not.
4. A civil partnership cannot be between different sex people.

Since gay marriage was made legal the government is now waiting to assess the requirement for a separate category of marriage and civil partnership.

I suspect they might do away with civil partnership and just let everyone be married.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





Beijing

 oldzoggy wrote:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It seems like they're being deliberately contrary to me. You can already have a marriage with a civil ceremony, no religious connotations at all. Your marriage has all the religious meaning you want to give it. You pick your vows, so if you don't want the woman serving the man, fine. This is a fuss about nothing, I find people moaning about 'the patriarchy' in this manner insufferable.


I can think of quite a few instances when you would want to have the same rights as someone who is married but don't want to be "married".
For example suppose you and your partner own a house and have some kids, and you do want things to be in order when things go wrong somebody dies etc.
You do want to be married some day with a expensive big party with all the fuss and family just not today or this year for all sorts of reasons. This makes civil partnership the ideal solution since you do get the protection, but you can still have a real marriage in the near future even if you are already sort of married for the law for ages.


You can do all that through a will and granting power of attorney if you don't want to be married. As for comparing civil partnership and marriage, there's no rights exclusive to either, they amount to the same thing, they're making a fuss over the name. They claim that 'marriage' somehow symbolises loads of stuff a civil partnership doesn't, but given you can have a civil ceremony and pick your own vows... it's just about the name. Methinks they like the attention.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/21 21:37:18


 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut






The thing is while they might be the same by law, your inlaws might not agree. It might be worth a lot to evade the "so you where married without us" discussion.
Names are important in social context.

Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

These feel like arguments I heard before...

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Hopefully the govt will simply dump civil partnership and that will end the argument.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It seems like they're being deliberately contrary to me. You can already have a marriage with a civil ceremony, no religious connotations at all. Your marriage has all the religious meaning you want to give it. You pick your vows, so if you don't want the woman serving the man, fine. This is a fuss about nothing, I find people moaning about 'the patriarchy' in this manner insufferable.


Here in the US we had almost the same argument, but in reverse. For a long time in many places homosexuals were allowed to have civil partnerships, but not "marriage". These civil partnerships granted all the same things as marriage, except for the actual term "marriage". Homosexuals just wanted the world to know they were "married". People would often state, "What's the difference? You're together, and it means the same thing." Well, yes, and no. Separate but equal is rarely equal.

It seems that this is pretty much the same, but in reverse. I can't help but support these people. I mean really, who are they hurting? Everyone should be equal and all that.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





With marriage equality why are civil partnerships still on the books?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

My best guess is that they are just vestigial remnants still on the books. Kind of like laws that say you must hitch your horse properly.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





North Carolina

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Civil Partnership grants entirely the same legal protections and privileges as legal marriage, but it is not called marriage and only gay couples can get it.

Gay couples of course can now get married.

Heterosexual couples cannot have civil partnerships. The heterosexual couple in this case want to be "married" in a way that is not called "married".

Common Law marriage has no basis in law and offers no legal rights, but sadly a lot of people think it does and are gravely disappointed when they find out it doesn't.





Perhaps under U.K. law.


But here in the U.S., there are States that recognize Common Law marriage. However, my home State isn't one of them.

Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
With marriage equality why are civil partnerships still on the books?


The government wanted to see the take-up of gay marriage versus civil partnerships, before amending the legislation. At the moment it seems that most gay people prefer to marry rather than get a civil partnership.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

GoatboyBeta wrote:
With marriage equality why are civil partnerships still on the books?


Not everyone wants to get married. In the US, California started the concept of civil partnerships for long term relationships with similar rights.
On a libertarian basis, why shouldn't everyone have the same rights?

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





So there were a few pieces in the I paper on this story today(one about the case and two opinion pieces from either side). There main objection seemed to be to the "patriarchal baggage" of marriage
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

Why is that a face palm?

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in gb
Drakhun





Because marriage isn't patriarchal baggage.

I'm just waiting for the Government to scrap Civil Partnerships now. Get married or don't. Your call.

DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+
Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

 welshhoppo wrote:
Because marriage isn't patriarchal baggage.


It's not an either/or scenario. It's entirely possible for the concept of marriage to carry baggage for these folks, while holding none for others.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in ca
Fighter Ace






So wait, is it literally two institutions "separate but equal"?
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: