News1 min ago
Are You Woke?
The latest is that heterosexual couples have been granted their wish to be like same sex couples in being able to have a civil partnership. What is the problem with marriage which does not have to be a religious ceremony, can be Registry Office. So the binding commitment to one another is what counts. Choose your partner on Sale or Return possibly?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Stargazer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't understand why Civil Partnerships are required any longer. The chronology:
1. Same sex couples could not marry.
2. Civil Partnerships were introduced to allow them to recognise their partnership.
3. Same-sex marriage was made possible.
Er.... that should be it. There is no necessity for two different types of partnership to be available for either same-sex couples or mixed-sex couples. As far as I am aware the differences between the two are minimal:
- A marriage certificate requires just the names of both partners’ fathers, while a civil partnership certificate requires the names of both parents.
- Civil partners cannot call themselves ‘married’ for legal purposes.
- A marriage is ended with divorce by obtaining a decree absolute, while a civil partnership is ended with dissolution by obtaining a dissolution order.
Adultery is not a valid reason to dissolve a civil partnership, but it can be used to divorce.
So no great shakes with any of that that could not be ironed out with a few adjustments to the legislation. Quite why the couple who campaigned for about five years to allow mixed-sex Civil Partnerships makes me question their reasoning.
1. Same sex couples could not marry.
2. Civil Partnerships were introduced to allow them to recognise their partnership.
3. Same-sex marriage was made possible.
Er.... that should be it. There is no necessity for two different types of partnership to be available for either same-sex couples or mixed-sex couples. As far as I am aware the differences between the two are minimal:
- A marriage certificate requires just the names of both partners’ fathers, while a civil partnership certificate requires the names of both parents.
- Civil partners cannot call themselves ‘married’ for legal purposes.
- A marriage is ended with divorce by obtaining a decree absolute, while a civil partnership is ended with dissolution by obtaining a dissolution order.
Adultery is not a valid reason to dissolve a civil partnership, but it can be used to divorce.
So no great shakes with any of that that could not be ironed out with a few adjustments to the legislation. Quite why the couple who campaigned for about five years to allow mixed-sex Civil Partnerships makes me question their reasoning.
The cost between Civil Partnership and Register Office seems to vary by location but a Civil Partnership may be cheaper.
https:/
reception/registry-office-wedding/
https:/
https:/
reception/registry-office-wedding/
https:/
When Same-sex marriage became permissible under the Law Civil Partnerships should have been scrubbed from the Statute Books; to take effect from the same date.
Those who had already entered into a CP and wanted to 'upgrade' ought to have been allowed to do so with the monies paid for the CP taken into consideration; those in a CP who wanted to preserve the status quo should have been allowed to do so.
And then 'marriage for all' or cohabiting outside of marriage ought to have been the only options.
Those who had already entered into a CP and wanted to 'upgrade' ought to have been allowed to do so with the monies paid for the CP taken into consideration; those in a CP who wanted to preserve the status quo should have been allowed to do so.
And then 'marriage for all' or cohabiting outside of marriage ought to have been the only options.
