If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I have already answered the question of how you would manage it.
As for 'enforcing' it, I'm not quite sure what you mean there.
Not necessarily.
Why are you asking me? Am I Tony Blair?
If you are asking for my personal opinion, I'd say 6 months.
The people behind the bill are suggesting two years.
Not everyone will agree on the minimum time, but a time will be set up, and that will be it.
The courts would have to decide on that.
Er... no they can't. Not unless they get married.
Who has ever chosen not to?
No. There could be an opt-out clause, just like a pre-nuptial. At the end of the day such rights are a given to start with.
Kerching.
All encompassed in one easy sentence.
... and nobody is forcing them to do that.
Those same people may, like you, want rights enshrined in law. Well, there is a way to do that if that is what you want. You don't have to, the state doesn't force you to enshrine those rights, in fact the state gives you freedom not to have those rights.
We call this process "marriage".
It is, now, possible the most equal process we have. It really doesn't matter if you are gay or straight, it doesn't matter if you are 18 or 80. It doesn't matter what ethnic background you have. Whatever your circumstances, you can have those rights.
All you have to do is sign a document saying that is what you want.
But that isn't what the state wants, it's what those couples want. The state provides a way.
Actually the essential right is that of your parents to have "next-of-kin" rights, it is part of the responsibility we parents have - to ensure the well being of our offspring. It's partly why an under-18 cannot sign away those rights without our agreement.
When my children are over -18 they can pass that responsibility to someone whom they trust, but as the legal responsibility rests with me, then they must do it in a legal way.
Because it requires a conscious decision, whereas you want the state to decide. I thought I was the one missing the libertarian/rights point?
As if the Family Court don't have enough to be getting on with.
You have yet to come up with one reason why the most basic of rights- the right to self-determination- should be overriden. "I don't like marriage" isn't a good enough reason, especially as all your opposition to marriage appears to be on religious grounds. Religious grounds that are, of course, banned in all civil ceremonies.
If you want to give your stuff to your partner you choose to sign the relevant forms. You can also choose not to sign the relevant forms, and your partner won't get your stuff. Your "rights" are not being infringed- it will take you ten minutes to sign these forms.
Your rights are all there- you have the right to choose. Obviously you and your partner have chosen that some bizarre political point is more important than financial security. I wouldn't seek to force you to change that stance, but if you take that choice there are certain consequences of it. Not my problem, I'm afraid. The choice, after all, is yours.
It's not the state's position to make my choices for me. That's the real right at stake here.
It is not for the state to change everything just to accomodate your wishes, not when everything you want is already available.
Why should someone lose rights to half of their house without choosing for that to happen? I'm genuinely interested in how their right to choose is less important than yours.
How many more times do we have to go through this?
The Family Court would be dealing with exactly the same number of cases if everyone got married wouldn't it?
It is for millions of us, and it is for a complex number of reasons, not just a simple "I don't wanna".
What gives you such idea? Where have I given such indication?
I am aware of the existence of civil ceremonies you know... :rolleyes:
As I said before, opt-out.
Why's it unjust? You have the right to get married don't you? You just choose not to. Your choice, mate.
It's "unjust" because you don't want to? Pass me the tissues.
Out of interest, is it unjust that you have to apply for a driving licence in order to drive?
It wouldn't be dealing with couples arguing about whether they were a couple or not, would it?
To prove something you need to make a legal declaration of it. I don't see the problem with that. Why do you?
All your anti-religious claptrap in the past, and your whingeing about the "institution" of marriage.
There isn't a legal reason why you and your lass cannot be married. You choose not to be married. Your choice.
It'd be like me screaming injustice because my bank won't let me open an account without proving who I am.
When does "deserve" come into it? When possessions are shared then there isn't an issue. It's when they aren't that your problem arises.
Those are your possessions, not hers. Are you suggesting that the state should have the right to confiscate them from your existing legal next of kin without your agreement?
Several I suspect because you still haven't explained why a change in law is necessary because you can already have everything you want.
You never really answered my question about marriage. How does it differ in your eyes, from the cohabitation relationship you already have?
In what way?
The existing system is opt-in, you don't get much more freedom than that. If you partner doesn't want to opt in and give you those rights then how committed are they? I mean really? This isn't about religion remember.
It also reflects the 21st century because it's the most equal system ever.
In a climiate where Govt restriction appear in so many place, here is one where the choice is entirely yours.
Poor analogy.
Because marriage is infinitely more significant, profound and relevant than a 'legal declaration'.
Though apparently not to many of you.
Well you're as wrong as wrong can one be.
Yeah and there isn't a legal reason why gay people couldn't turn themselves straight and have a 'normal' marriage with a woman. Why grant them civil ceremonies?
Or were you against those as well?
Er no we don't. You and others keep ignoring the point that existing provisions, wills included, don't cover every eventuality by any means.
In a number of ways, not least joining an institution that was if not founded at least based on a notion of 'property' of your spouse. And even if that is no longer the case it is certainly not right that we ought to 'formalise' our relationship as the State/church dictates (delete as appropriate) in order to be recognised. I don't need any State or government to tell me how I should 'formalise' my relationship before it becomes worthy in Big Brother's eye.
Do you go around grilling people about why are they religious? If not, why do you think it's right to grill people about why they don't want to embrace marriage?
No. I don't have much of a choice actually. Which is the point a few of you are now (I fear deliberately) ignoring.
In fact, time for me to ask a question or two. I want you, Kermit et al to tell us now why do you have such rabid opposition to cohabitees being given rights and responsibilities. No more beating about the bush. Why such irrational phobia about the idea? I could understand such position from a deeply religious person, but why you? Why do you give a fuck?
But even if we accept it, how does it justify equal rights to those of a married couple if it is "profoundly" different?
If you don't want those benefits from that State, you're right - you don't need approval from anyone.
You're just contradicting yourself now.
Really? Even though it's not important enough for you to declare her your legal next of kin/partner?
And yet you will happily have a will, and many other legal document which would enshrine all those other protections, but you will not sign the one document which you cover it all in any eventuality?
You aren't formalising your relationship.
You are formalising the legal status of that relationship.
You can have a sexual/loving relationship with 20 different women at a time as far as the state is concerned. Only one person can be your next of kin.
How is that, in any way, relevant?
Yeah you do. Each with a different set of consequences and different levels of protection.
Just like any choice, ups and downs.
I am not rabidly opposed. Why change something which is not broken? Something which requires minimal effort for, something you admit to being, huge benefit.
I ask again, if you cannot take such a small step to ensure the rights of your partner, just how important is that person to you?
Dogma is a pathetic reason not to protect her interests.
1. Cohabiting relationships and marriages have "the same worth".
2. Marriages are a "significant event", "more than signing a document".
If it is more significant, why is it unreasonable that the benefits bestowed on such couples by the state are more significant?
And you haven't quite got round the point of the different types of cohabiting relationships that exist: Would you have an opt-out system for those who didn't consider their cohabiting relationship to be "exactly the same" and of "the same worth" as a marriage?
For the four hundreth millionth time, it is a lot more complex and meaningful than just signing a document. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And that is why it's important that new legislation is introduced so all of that is covered without the need of getting married.
Well, do you go about grilling everyone and demanding they explain their personal beliefs to your entire and total satisfaction?
Yes and gay people have the choice of getting married to a person of the opposite sex as well.
I That's not much of an answer? Why do you care if it is changed? What is it to you?
It is not a small step to us.
For christ's sake, how long is it going to take until it sinks in???
In the same way as some married people choose to have a pre-nup, yes, I think an opt-out clause would be quite appropriate. Certainly if it works for married couples it works for cohabitees.
I think my neighbour covered that one then.
If you think it is more significant, then why are you complaining that the state agrees?
But the state has never had a problem with that. At least not hetrosexual relationships
If you want something defined legally, what is wrong with doing that legally?
It depends. When they are aksing for a change in the law to suit their own religious beliefs I would. As would you if a catholic argued for a ban on abortions purely on the basis of their religion.
Because it gives the state the power to take away rights from an individual (the parent) and give them to another individual (whoever you happen to be living with) without any legal process being undertaken. Basically.
I don't care if you call it marriage or a civil partnership, or even a contract. I do care that something so fundamental, something which clearly means so much, should not be left to assumptions.
Which is why you have to make an informed choice.
And then not stamp your feet because you didn't get everything you wanted.
You've managed to do the first part.
Because in this case the way "to do it legally" is far more complex and significant than simply signing a document.
All we are asking is that there is an alternative way available.
And I still don't understand why some people have a problem with that.
It depends. When they are aksing for a change in the law to suit their own religious beliefs I would. As would you if a catholic argued for a ban on abortions purely on the basis of their religion.
I'm sure there are many different ways to clear any doubts anyone might have, by means of opt-out contracts or other means.
You keep missing the point entirely, but never mind...
This is getting more bizarre by the minute.
Yes, they do.
I'm not sure why they would when they have the option of signing a legal declaration to state who their next of kin is, though.
Something which doesn't appear to be good enough for you.
I care because it is not for the state to enforce things against people who have not actively stated that they want those things to happen.
If you want to create a system where you sign a bit of paper to legally declare that your partner is your spouse and next of kin then I'm all for it. And now, finally, every single person in this country has that option.
If it pains you that much call it a legal partnership or whatever, but the simple fact remains that if you want your partner to have rights on your property then you need to sign for it.
As MoK states, something as important as gaining possessory rights over someone else's property cannot be decided by assumptions. If you want the same rights as married/legally partnered couples then one of those is gaining rights over the partnership's property. Letting my girlfriend live in my house isn't a declaration on my part that I want her to get half of it should we split. And it certainly isn't a declaration on my part that I want my parents and family to be cut out of my estate.
If its good enough for everyone else, why isn't it good enough for you? Because you don't want to?
In a nutshell, I'd say.
The only rationale behind Aladdin's viewpoint is pure selfishness. He can't be arsed, so we all have to jump.
In order to achieve this he wants to make it so that every other bugger has to go to the trouble of opting-out of something they don't want anyway.
After all, if you wanted your partner to have half of your house, you'd sign for it, wouldn't you?