Why civil partnerships for heterosexual couples could be a good idea
The Gazette reported last week that there has been a surge in cohabitiation cases as a result of the recession.
Reaching a fair arrangement in terms of custody of children and financial provision is tough enough when a couple is married, but it is all the more complex and difficult when they do not have a marriage certificate. The lack of legal certainty means more scope for disagreement between the parties, and that is both bad for their own state of mind, and that of any kids.
So surely anything that gives more legal certainty to the rules governing assets and children when a couple splits up deserves some consideration?
In our news story, Caroline Falkus, partner and collaborative lawyer at London firm Bross Bennett, called for civil partnerships to be available for heterosexual couples. That prompted immediate remarks in the comment box that heterosexuals do already have this option; it’s called marriage. Indeed, as civil partnerships are (as I understand it) intended to convey all the same rights and rules as marriage, then this does seem a sensible point. But the reality is that there is much more to marriage than simply legal rights.
There are plenty of cohabiting couples out there who would welcome the degree of legal protection and certainty that marriage, as opposed to cohabitation, brings. They want their arrangements to be on a firm legal footing.
But they don’t want to get married.
Getting married is not just about signing a document. I have plenty of friends who have talked about just popping down to the registry office with no big fuss. But somehow it never works out like that.
Every friend I know who has got married, has ended up having the full traditional setup. Not necessarily that fancy, and not always in a church, but there is always a white dress, numerous guests, a big meal, speeches, a honeymoon of some kind, and a hen or stag do beforehand. It is a wonderful occasion of course, but it costs money, and not everyone has the readies to pay for it.
Even friends who were adamant that they weren’t having a big wedding have always somehow ended up being sucked in. You start off small, then it snowballs. You don’t want a big do, but if you don’t invite this uncle or that cousin you might cause offence to that side of the family. Such-and-such won’t know anyone else, so you’d better invite her boyfriend whom you’ve never met. And it seems mean to tell people they can’t bring their kids. Then before you know it you have 60 guests where you only really wanted 10. You weren’t going to bother with flowers on the table, but your mum thinks it will look funny if you don’t. And so on. The average wedding these days is said to cost £20,000, though this must surely be an exaggeration. I hope.
Of course it is not just the money that puts people off being ‘married’ as opposed to entering a civil arrangement. Some people have been married before unhappily, and don’t want to do it again. Some even mark the moment they got married to their previous partner as the point at which it all started to go wrong.
It is true that couples can already help themselves by entering into contractual agreements. I met a mum-of-two last weekend who mentioned that she and her new partner had drawn up a cohabitation agreement. She had previously been through a highly acrimonious divorce, which saw her former husband trying to claim maintenance payments from her as she had been the higher earner, although they did not have any children. As she had been married for less than 10 years he didn’t get very far, but the experience has put her off marriage for life.
But while cohabitation agreements are a sensible option, they are little known. Any introduction of civil partnerships for heterosexual couples, on the other hand, would be accompanied by a wave of publicity – both good and bad – that would mean everyone was aware of it as an option. It would also be seen by many couples as a positive step to take together, rather than drawing up a cohabitation agreement that essentially outlines how things will be handled if and when the relationship turns sour.
One big concern over heterosexual civil partnerships is the fear that they could undermine marriage. Would this be the case? It would almost certainly reduce the number of marriages. But in a sense, I think it could heighten the status of marriage itself. As people could obtain the same tax and financial benefits through a civil partnership, those who chose marriage would be taking an extra step. And that would be making a statement that their union was about more than just practical matters.
Comments
Sounds good to me
This raises some interesting points and |I think it sounds like a good idea. Ultimately it won't undermine marriage because people can still get married if they want to.
It won't undermine marriage
It won't undermine marriage but it will create a new 'class' of partnership that undermines the cause for recognising gay civil partnerships as equal to heterosexual marriage. So it only makes sense in a rights capacity to also make it legal for gay people to marry. Then everyone has the option of either marriage or civil partnership. Which will make civil partnership something it currently isn't.
If you don't want a big white wedding, don't have one. Get married elsewhere than a church, elope! Plenty of people do it on the cheap. If yours is the type family to be hurt that you aren't kitted out in full meringue with eighteen second cousins to (wo)man the train then they'll probably also be put out that you had a civil partnership 'instead' - should that be an option. Legislation to prevent familial sulking is not the answer.
Rubbish. By definition you
Rubbish. By definition you don't hear about the no-frills weddings with two witnesses and a drink afterwards (at least until afterwards) but they happen.
If a couple want to take on binding legal obligations to each other, they can, it is called marriage, and it can be done for a small fee to the Registrar or you can make a performance of it.
If they don't so wish, fine, they don't have to. But (apart from protection for the children while they are dependent - and no longer) let's have no pretending that they did. If they buy property jointly let's have an irrebuttable presumption that they meant to share equally on breakdwon unless they specify equally at the time - and otherwise let the chips lie where they fall.
Last comment went awry. For
Last comment went awry. For "specify equally" read "specify otherwise". Sorry.
Equality
Civil partnerships were created as a way to give "equality" to gay couples. Government bowed to the pressure from established churches to keep marriage "between a man and a woman" by creating civil partnerships as a different, but equal binding committment. For that reason, while allowing heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships is unlikely to undermine the status of marriage, it would, in my view, undermine the status of civil partnerships. For gay couples, civil partnerships are marriages and they enter into them every bit as seriously as heterosexual couples enter into marriage. And so they should, because civil partnerships bring all the same rights and responsibilities for the couple concerned as marriage would. The suggestion here is that a civil partnership is somehow less significant than a marriage.
As to the argument about the cost of marriage, well I'm afraid that's a nonsense. My own wedding cost the bare minimum with only my spouse, my parents and the registrar at the wedding. I've been to civil partnership ceremonies that were far more extravagent.
I am offended by Ms
I am offended by Ms Rothwell's article. The law confers on me the right to have a civil partnership with my partner. I am not entitled to marry, whether in a church or a registry office. Ms Rothwell proposes that those heterosexual couples for whom marriage just seems too much of an effort or expense should be entitled to adopt the "lite" version that the law allows me. Nice.
Civil partnership as secular marriage
It's a really good idea to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. My partner and i have been together for 10 years and haven't got married mainly because we see it as a ritual created by the church - we are both atheists who don't wish to sanctify our relationship in the eyes of the lord. We both quite like the idea of a civil partnership because we see it as a secular marriage - it would allow us to show each other that the relationship is for keeps and give us the same legal rights as under a traditional marriage.
Secular marriage
Dear Anon (Mon, 16/08/2010 - 12:03)
What you're proposing is *exactly* what is available now. A non religious, secular, heterosexual union can be achieved in front of a registrar, either in a register office or a licensed venue of your choice. There is no obligation to get wed in a church and there hasn't been since, I believe, 1837. In fact, any religous text, lyrics or symbolism are explicitly forbidden in a civil ceremony. We're shortly having an entirely secular wedding, as did my parents over 35 years ago. It only takes a little homework - the church hasn't had the stranglehold on certifying relationships for nearly two centuries.
A civil partnership and a civil marriage is exactly the same in function, and vary only slightly in form. There already is a mechanism 'to show each other that the relationship is for keeps and give us the same legal rights as under a traditional marriage', and one does not need to devalue the hard-won concept of a civil partnership in order to achieve it. Why create heterosexual civil partnerships where a direct equivalent already exists?
The suggestion in the main article that the concept of a 'wedding' (even a civil one) is too inconvenient socially or financially, and therefore we should have a lesser version is an insult to both the gay community and to those who take their civil marriage seriously. The 'wedding' is a social concept and not a legal one, and however much you or anyone else as a couple intend to buy-in to the traditional wedding hoopla, however, is entirely up to you. A flamboyant wedding does not make a good marriage. No-one's forced or obliged to do any of it. A wedding is a day, a marriage is for the duration. The amount of money you throw at the former has no reflection on the latter.
Therefore If you don't want to have a posh, all-out wedding, don't have one. Simple. However If you don't want to have the marriage without the posh wedding, you may want reflect on your choices. However, in the end, one does not have to give in to the social pressures or marketing
if you don't want to.
But don't try to tell me that we should change the entire concept of a legally binding heterosexual partnership because one can't be bothered to say 'no'.
Secular marriage
Anon 16/08/2101 14.03 has it spot on. By its definition, "marriage" cannot take place between lesbian and gay couples, hence the creation of the "civil partnership" for those such couples who want something legal. Religion of any type doesn't (have to) come into it. So a Registry wedding which has no religious connotations is in effect a heterosexual civil partnership. What more do you want??
secular marriage
Sorry, of course it isn't yet 2101! You know what I meant!
Heterosexual civil partnerships
I have been providing property advice to a couple who wish to marry in the Catholic church. One party divorced after a short marriage some years ago and requires the bishop's consent, not yet forthcoming. An 'interim' civil partnership would be ideal in their case.
Cohabitation
In a hetrosexual relationship the concept of "common law spouse" has long since been recognised; and, in certain situations, may carry benefits. The equivalent in a same sex relationship seems impossible.
Co-Habitation
@Frank
There is no legal concept of 'common law spouse'. This is one of the myths which create the problems referred to in this article and the attached posts.
Can you list the benefits you refer to?
Civil Partnerships
The Government should offer only civil partnerships. If people want marriage as well, they can go to a church.
Walker J's 9th Circuit opinion (Prop 8) is compelling. The two-tiered system is discriminatory and there is no rational basis for denying gays and lesbians the same rights as straight people. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
Civil Partnerships
Rachel Rothwells's reasoning is faulty beyond belief, as is the person writing about an interim civil partnership. The only reason the government shied away from allowing gay "marriages" was because of the pressure brought to bear by religious zealots. However, ask any gay person in a civil partnership, and I am sure they will tell you that they consider themselves to be married with all the rights and responsibilities that brings. And yes, sometimes, there is even a big white dress (or 2)! I personally would have preferred to have been married in a church- by my partner's father who is a vicar, and would happily have conducted a marriage ceremony for us. Sadly, we didn't have that choice. Unlike hetrosexual couples. If they don't want a religious ceremony, they can have a civil ceremony. Similarly, if they don't want a big do, they don't have to have one. The suggestion that a civil partnership is a low key, less meaningful commitment is extremely offensive and perpetuates the notion that discrimination against gay people doesn't really matter. Would you say that a Muslim or Jewish ceremony should be offered to hetrosexual couples as a subsitutute for marriage? Probably not- but why not? Because then you would be accused of being racist. Why is homophobia acceptable? Hetrosexuals already have the choice of a religious or civil ceremony. What more do they want? Why are we even considering devaluing the meaning of civil partnerships- they are just as valid, and the fact that Rachel Rothwell can't see that is so depressing. We are not second class citizens, and neither are our relationships.
@Anonymous on Mon, 16/08/2010 - 18:56.
To your couple wishing a Catholic wedding and waiting for approval - they have the 'stop gap' you want already. They can marry in a civil ceremony and then have the wedding blessed by the church at a later date, should the church approve.
I agree with all of the comments here which state that the idea of a civil partnership for heterosexual couples being 'marriage lite', or elevating marriage to some kind of special plane of existence and an extra commitment is wholly offensive to homosexual couples who have fought so hard for legal recognition of their partnerships and commitments to one another.
And it really should take state intervention to help you stand up to your mother and great aunt Flo (or whoever) in admitting that you don't want all the frills and flounces of a big white wedding.
*shouldn't* in that last
*shouldn't* in that last paragraph...
Partnerships for All
Although registry offices are the legal alternative to religious marriages which are legally recognised, they don't suit everyone. Some registrars can seem to be officious little people, who forget that they are there, for you, and paid by you, to provide you with a service. There might be a dislike too of the local authority (therefore the government) poking its nose into your business.
We could have ''marriage [partnership!] celebrants'' (as exist in Australia), who are not employees of the state, or any religion, and respect what the people want to be in their service and cannot try and impose their wishes.
Following the French system would be a good idea, and people could cite that as an example of how heterosxual and homosexual partners have the equal right to the same ceremony. Being denied that, in another European country, is discrimination.
marriage or civil partnership
Why are we making an issue of this? Marriage is marriage and civil partnerships are just that. We cannot legislate for all kinds of relationships. It is no wonder people are confused. The law needs to be simple and clear so that people can understand it. Otherwise we have bad law
marriage or civil partnership
Why are we making an issue of this? Marriage is marriage and civil partnerships are just that. We cannot legislate for all kinds of relationships. It is no wonder people are confused. The law needs to be simple and clear so that people can understand it. Otherwise we have bad law
There are so many people out
There are so many people out there today trying to undermine religion and marriage that it is unbelievable!
Why? What are they frightened of?