Couples make history in first mixed-sex civil partnerships

I cannot see how this differs from marriage. Whatever those wanting one say, the difference is entirely semantic. The meaning and practice of marriage, like everything else in life has changed its meaning and developed over centuries. and it is sad that some people are so busy looking at the past that they cannot see what marriage actually means nowadays and contribute themselves to ensuring in the future that it remains the free and equal commitment it now is.

Would they refuse to send their children to school, because girls and boys used to be schooled separately and taught to different curriculums, one to prepare boys for employment, while girls were educated in the domestic skills to make them good wives and mothers?

What we should do is separate the legal act of forming a partnership from any other partnership ceremony, whether religious or other. It is what already happens in France and several other European

I can’t help wondering whether it’s going to make any difference to the sort of couples where one of them (more often the woman) would like a legal union, but the other doesn’t, because ‘it’s just a piece of paper’.

Only for him to take off after some, or even many years, with someone else, and marry soon afterwards,

I know of a few such cases and have heard of several more. It wasn’t that he didn’t want to make the commitment - he just didn’t want to make it with his former partner.

You cannot have a pre - nup agreement with a civil partnership apparently

I agree with suzied. Can't see the point. Will there be legal implications if they split up?

Better late than never.

Where I live Civil Partnerships have been available since 1987.

I had no idea it wasn't aleady a thing!

Gay people can choose whether to marry or have a civil partnership. Up until now heterosexual couples could only marry. As stated here many people dislike the concept of marriage for various reasons , but seek legal protection

What happens if they split up?

The two people would then be partners, rather than husband and wife. Is that it?
Is there a legal advantage to it?

An unhappy first marriage had me unwilling to marry again. Inheritance issues and children led mt to marry for the second time 36 years ago. We remain very happy thankfully. The patriarchal implications of marriage bothered both of us, we were and remain committed to a loving partnership. If civil partnership had been an option, it’s the one we’d have taken.

Surely when same sex marriage became possible there was no longer a need for civil partnerships. Existing civil partners could have been granted married status and civil partnerships abolished.

There is no ceremony involved, no vows etc simply go to registrar and sign the document, witnessed by two people and you're done.
I've lived with my OH for 40 years, having been divorced. Would never go through marriage ceremony again but would consider this.

I m not sure I understand the need for this what s the difference I m nor saying it’s right or wrong just not sure of it’s relevance

It would appeal to people like myself. I'm not married - I could be if I was asked but I dislike the "wife" connotations. To me it smacks of patriarchy.

Obviously equality is important, but Isn't this just marriage with a different name ? Not sure why the sort of person who “doesn’t believe in marriage” or thinks “it’s only a piece of paper” isn’t suddenly going to want to have a civil partnership. Maybe it’s just professional middle class couples who will be doing this. Now there’s equality in marriage, and lots of gay couples have got married - Why have both?

Yes, great news. It was bound to happen at some point though.

About time too.

Good news, time things were open to all.