Why would a straight couple want a civil partnership? (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Jon Kelly
BBC News Magazine

***
They don't want to get married. But they still want to make a lifetime commitment to each other. And they'd like greater legal and financial security than that offered by simply cohabiting.

So what's the solution? It's obvious, really: a civil partnership.

There's only one snag. Under the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, such arrangements are restricted to couples of the same sex.

This, however, is not enough to deter Tom and Katherine. So on Tuesday 9 November, they will head to their local town hall in Islington, north London, and file a civil partnership application.
***
It is part of a legal bid spearheaded by the activist Peter Tatchell called the Equal Love campaign, which aims to redress the imbalance between heterosexual and homosexual partnership rights.
***
more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835




IMHO, a well-planned assault on the language which currently frames the debate.

[veganlush]

1. great idea. more people should do this

..civil unions instead of marriage, which is really just a religious ceremony....separate church and state

[Blasphemer]

5. Agreed. All legal unions should be civil unions.

Religious marriage ceremonies should be a separate option that have nothing to do with a union's legal status.

[SoCalDem]

2. In a grown-up society, ANYONE should be able to "choose one person"

to be their life-partner. This person would the the one with legal rights to inheritance, taxation benefits, health care benefits, etc. In other words, ALL legal rights now bestowed upon married folks.

This partnership would be the legally recognized one, and would require legal dissolution, if they split up (just as divorce is not the "out" for married people).

IF this pairing is also a "love-match" AND the couple is religious, they would have every right to go to their church/synagogue/mosque/temple/chapel/cathedral/storefront-Jesus facility, to have it officially blessed by their religious leaders & family/friends.

As far as the "state" is concerned, the interpersonal day-to-day lives of the couple should be insignificant. They would be just another legally-tethered "couple", and what they did in their private lives would be just that...private.

[damntexdem]

3. All would if the state got out of the marriage business and only offered civil partnerships.

Let communities of people, including churches, handle the marriage business. Have government handle only the legal partnership end.

[Raine]

4. I like the idea nt

[JNelson6563]

6. As an unbeliever this is what I'd do if I had someone

I wanted to spend the rest of my life with. I don't foresee that happening again, been there once for 20 years.

Julie

[Barack_America]

7. I can answer that.

I was facing the same dilemma just a year ago when I got married, but desired a civil partnership.

My husband/partner and I wanted a commitment that celebrated our love for one another and our intentions to support one another for the rest of our days. Unfortunately, given that gay and lesbian couples who share the same love as we do are not allowed to be married, that meant that our marriage would not be about love, but about some bullshit religious/social/political construct. Our government has effectively taken love out of marriage and inserted religion. That's not what we wanted out of our commitment, but that's what we were forced into. To make us feel a bit better about the situation, we introduced the notion of a Quaker wedding ceremony into our nuptials and explicitly told our guests that we considered not the government to be recognizing our relationship as a "marriage", but our beloved friends and family themselves who became signed witnesses to our vows on our Quaker wedding certificate.

[REP]

8. That's what we wanted but it's not an option.

I'll say it again: if "marriage" is what we're stuck with, then EVERYONE should have the right to it. As others have mentioned, though, state sanction and registry of a relationship is a bit icky; civil union is less intrusive than what marriage implies (though god-free weddings and marriages are quite doable).