Ban on heterosexual civil partnerships in UK ruled discriminatory

[Malthus]

Good point Malthus

It is a tricky issue. But it was ultimately this issue that made Homosexuals so insistent on some sort of state recognition, wasn't it?

I don't think it was mainly that - it was more, I think, the symbolic acceptance that their relationships, identical to those of heterosexual people, be recognized as legally equal.

In fact ... a lot of gays I know have mixed feelings about being treated legally the same as heterosexuals - that is, the ones who are relatively wealthy. Gay marriage is an obvious rallying-cry, being excluded from (say) pension benefits an obvious injustice,  but they feel somewhat more ambivalent about suddenly being subject to spousal support obligations or family property equalization. 

Also, some have a psychic investment, as it were, in being different from and an alternative to heterosexual society, often seen as dull and conformist. They aren't totally eager to become the gay Cleavers, married with a mortgage kind of people. Though they pretty well universally believe gays should have the right to, if they want! 

[Richard Hakluyt]

I don't approve of "common law" marriages; they are an infringement of liberty. It should be up to the people concerned whether they form a civil union or marriage.

Heh, the context for making the determination is usually people wanting some sort of benefits once the relationship has ended, either on the death of the spouse (looking to get access to pensions and other death benefits) or spousal support ... the issue is to balance people's rights to arrange their affairs as they want, with society's rights not to have to deal with such arrangements rendering someone a pauper (to be taken care of, presumably, by the state rather than by their former spouse or pension plan or whatever).

Say I'm a wealthy professional dude, I want to have all the benefits of a wife, I start living with a woman, have kids with her, and in every respect we live as man and wife; as is well known, in many such arrangements, the financial aspects are a trade off - one partner (most often the woman in hetero couples, but of course not always) takes on more of the child rearing, the other more of the earning ... then we split after a decade, or I suddenly die. If she's a "spouse", she'd get spousal support if we split, and she'd get survivor benefits if I die ... if she's not, she gets nothing.

The common law marriage acts as a sort of halfway house - you get some rights (pension, support) but not others (property equalization). So there is still choice, just not an absolute choice.

Yes, there are many hard cases which is why the state gets involved. But my preferred outcome is for the woman to tell the wealthy professional dude to either commit or get lost 

We have a related problem here in the UK with Muslim marriages. An astounding 61% are not married in the eyes of the state https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/20/women-uk-islamic-wedding-legal-rights-civil-ceremony-marriage .

[Valmy]

Also, some have a psychic investment, as it were, in being different from and an alternative to heterosexual society, often seen as dull and conformist. They aren't totally eager to become the gay Cleavers, married with a mortgage kind of people. Though they pretty well universally believe gays should have the right to, if they want! 

Oh yes heterosexual people are basically 1950s sitcoms. Anyway this thread shows that plenty of heterosexual people are self-satisfied free spirits as well

[Richard Hakluyt]

Good point Malthus

It is a tricky issue. But it was ultimately this issue that made Homosexuals so insistent on some sort of state recognition, wasn't it?

I don't think it was mainly that - it was more, I think, the symbolic acceptance that their relationships, identical to those of heterosexual people, be recognized as legally equal.

In fact ... a lot of gays I know have mixed feelings about being treated legally the same as heterosexuals - that is, the ones who are relatively wealthy. Gay marriage is an obvious rallying-cry, being excluded from (say) pension benefits an obvious injustice,  but they feel somewhat more ambivalent about suddenly being subject to spousal support obligations or family property equalization. 

Also, some have a psychic investment, as it were, in being different from and an alternative to heterosexual society, often seen as dull and conformist. They aren't totally eager to become the gay Cleavers, married with a mortgage kind of people. Though they pretty well universally believe gays should have the right to, if they want!

Cakeism 

[garbon]

Also, some have a psychic investment, as it were, in being different from and an alternative to heterosexual society, often seen as dull and conformist. They aren't totally eager to become the gay Cleavers, married with a mortgage kind of people. Though they pretty well universally believe gays should have the right to, if they want! 

I don't see what's paradoxical about that. Same thing about women's fight for equality. Doesn't mean that there aren't some women who want to stay and be homemakers, it is about actually having a choice in the matter.

[Malthus]

Also, some have a psychic investment, as it were, in being different from and an alternative to heterosexual society, often seen as dull and conformist. They aren't totally eager to become the gay Cleavers, married with a mortgage kind of people. Though they pretty well universally believe gays should have the right to, if they want! 

I don't see what's paradoxical about that. Same thing about women's fight for equality. Doesn't mean that there aren't some women who want to stay and be homemakers, it is about actually having a choice in the matter.

Nothing at all paradoxical about it.

Point is that the fight was always more about the legal recognition of equality, than it was about anxiety to receive the financial benefits of the status (such as spousal support) - about which many, in fact, have mixed feelings. 

Gay marriage is above all about society at large including gays within its ambit, legally recognizing their relationships as equally "valid" -- even if not a single gay couple decides to actually get married.

The reverse of the coin is that gay couples here are now subject to common law status, whether they choose it or not.

[Josquius]

Next step lets have civil partnerships be automatic after x years living together.

A government log of sexual activity would be needed; otherwise one might end up in a civil partnership with some random flatmate.

Pretty sure it does work that way in Sweden actually.

And why not?
If you're living with someone 10 years then they're as good as family even if you're not intimate.