h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm saying noffing..... I'll only incriminate myself... more than I already have

Oh, bless you, MCF - you've made me the happiest man alive!

Well, at least it didn't involve the Badger dance ...

I think we'l have to have the badger and* the pants dance at my reception

Will you allow us to bring earplugs?

Or a blindfold?

Both?

Does one have to kiss ones OWN groom?

its my special day you can't wear bindfolds

Not that marvellous as it's still ifnerior to hetero marriage. To me, it's a legal document just like signing for a mortgage, for a loan, for Sky TV etc is and nothing more. It does not have the social status of marriage and people need to realise this.

In addition, you will find that it will be degraded in two specific ways. One, the Law Commission is currently looking at ways to protect the rights of non-married heterosexuals and is due to report shortly. What will happen, IMO, is that heteros will be allowed to enter into civil partnerships, thereby giving heteros the option of CP AND marriage whereas all we will have is the option of CP.

The other way is that anyone can enter into a CP regardless of whether they are in a relationship. Therefore, for example, two heterosexual mates can have one, business partners or those who use a bit of common sense could eneter into one as a tax dodge. This would belittle CP just a teeny bit don't you think?

I don 't see whay allowing heterosexuals to get civilpartners devalues it. Also, people abuse marraige - think immigration, taxes etc. I think we need to give it time.

As I understand it CP was created "to correct an injustice," as the polititians have been quoted as saying, for same sex couples and they said that what they created was specifically intended for same sex couples. Therefore, to offer it for mixed sex couples who can have a non-religious civil marriage would belittle it for gays and also create inequality which they tell us they were trying to remove by setting up CP because heteros would have marriage and CP whereas same sex only having CP.

Yes I am sure there are a few who abuse marriage especially for immigration reasons. However, the loophole for CP is that much wider making it far easier to do so and therefore I am sure that a large number of heterosexuals will use the CP for various reasons as a way to avoid various tax and other simialr stuff.

>>It does not have the social status of marriage and people need to realise this<<

Who determines whether it has the social status of marriage? I think that might be us, society. I might be wrong on this but I don't know of any way in which a CP isn't legally equivalent to a registry office 'marriage' for straights. Registry office dos aren't thought of as been less than marriage, just secular, and when people have asked me about CPs I've made this point and most have agreed with me.
Civil Partnerships haven't been around long enough to have any real social status, but if we treat them as equal to marriage, as I believe them to be, then so will others.

As for the loophole thing, as Cupid pointed out, this can be done with heterosexual marriages and almost any legal contract. And if a CP confers the same legal rights as a marriage how can the loophole be any more severe? Finally, just because someone else abuses a system I hold dear doesn't undermine that system for me

In the true definition of the word marriage, it is the religious ceremony joining a man and woman together before God. However, we live in a secualr age and that definition has been broadened out to describe the legal joining of a man and a woman. In other words, if it is religious it is called "holy matrimony" (joined togetehr in holy matrimony I believe) and if it is done at a registery office, it is called "marriage."

However, with a CP it is the signing of a legal document and becomes legal when the second person signs that document in the same way that any other legal document becomes legal when it is signed. For opposite sex marriage, vows have to be made in public, whether it be from a set text or self-composed vows, and a ceremony has to take place before the couple are pronoucned husband and wife by the registrar. If you like, it is a public declaration of their union in law. For CP, all that happens is that the two people must sign the form in front of a registrar and in front of two other people. You can be in and out in the time it takes for five people to sign a piece of paper. To me, that difference, apart from anything else, is fundamental and means it is nothing more than signing any other form of legal document as it has been speficially framed as nothing more than a legal document. Therefore, for that very reason they can't be treated as equal to marriage because it is not marriage and nothing like marriage and that's the issue that I have and I see it as a vastly inferior legal document with none of the social norm and acceptance which goes with marriage.

I udnerstand that loopholes can be used by getitng married but with CP they are that much larger and when the CP came into law, they were highlighted and discussed, making it easy for heterosexuals to take advantage of the loopholes should they choose to do so.

Again I might be wrong, but I think that with a registry office ceremony all that is required is the signatures, there doesn't need to be any vows made etc. The straight couples are well within their rights to add on this paraphenalia if they so desire, but so are gay couples with CP.

My personal position is quite simple, I've never been one for showiness and to me the only important part of a CP or a marriage is the legal rights. There are relationship things, commitment and love and stuff, but that's really in place before the ceremony and I wouldn't need a ceremony to display and announce these things to the world. But that's just me

I had a quick look at both and yes you are correct that for CP only the documents have to be signed, as it is nothing but a legal document, but heteros have to make formal verbal vows before they are declared "husband and wife" by the registrar.

I totally agree with the other stuff you said about not needing the show. For me, if it ever became relevent, I'd want to be in and out of there in 60 seconds flat, if at all possible - no ceremony or nothing, and none of the reception stuff afterwards either. You don't suddenly ebcome more in love etc by signing a piece of paper, do you.