This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Childcare grant and changing application on last term
- Entering civil partnership to get increased funding
- Help with Edexcel AS level politics question
- Certified Translation
- Student finance
- how to become a landlord
- Hinge/Tinder
- wrong marital status on student finance
- Student Finance Asking for Evidence
- Separated parents
- Student Finance England - Parents separating
- Does the CS send postal letters?
- Spouse Visa/Student Loan/Eligibility
- How to change student finance application?
- Childcare Grant and household income
- Eligibility for ADG
- Removing parent from application
- Does applying for higher maintenance loan delay tuition fees if complications happen
- Student loan for independant person separated from spouse
- Engineering
Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage
Scroll to see replies
Yes- it has increased, but not to a point where it has once again overtaken marriage. For more information on this point see:
Duncan, Barlow and Jones, "Research: Why don't they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage", CFLQ, 2005, 384
Hughes, Davis and Jacklin, ""Come be with me and be my love"- a consideration of the 2007 Law Commission proposals on cohabitation breakdown", CFLQ, 2005 390
I didn't really want to start quoting sources here, because it is slightly boring ,but there you have it. Several academics agree on the matter.
Duncan, Barlow and Jones, "Research: Why don't they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage", CFLQ, 2005, 384
Hughes, Davis and Jacklin, ""Come be with me and be my love"- a consideration of the 2007 Law Commission proposals on cohabitation breakdown", CFLQ, 2005 390
I didn't really want to start quoting sources here, because it is slightly boring ,but there you have it. Several academics agree on the matter.
AdamTJ
Yes- it has increased, but not to a point where it has once again overtaken marriage. For more information on this point see:
Duncan, Barlow and Jones, "Research: Why don't they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage", CFLQ, 2005, 384
Hughes, Davis and Jacklin, ""Come be with me and be my love"- a consideration of the 2007 Law Commission proposals on cohabitation breakdown", CFLQ, 2005 390
I didn't really want to start quoting sources here, because it is slightly boring ,but there you have it. Several academics agree on the matter.
Duncan, Barlow and Jones, "Research: Why don't they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage", CFLQ, 2005, 384
Hughes, Davis and Jacklin, ""Come be with me and be my love"- a consideration of the 2007 Law Commission proposals on cohabitation breakdown", CFLQ, 2005 390
I didn't really want to start quoting sources here, because it is slightly boring ,but there you have it. Several academics agree on the matter.
I don't understand what point you're making exactly?
AdamTJ
As for civil partnerships- I think it's an absolute scandal that it's not called "marriage". There are (mainly symbolic) differences between civil partnerships and marriage. For instance non-consummation (or incapacity) is a ground for annulment of marriage but not for a civil partnership, essentially because the law refuses to recognise that gay sex is legitimate consummation. There are other pernickity examples like this which implicitly constitute state-sponsored discrimination.
As for civil partnerships- I think it's an absolute scandal that it's not called "marriage". There are (mainly symbolic) differences between civil partnerships and marriage. For instance non-consummation (or incapacity) is a ground for annulment of marriage but not for a civil partnership, essentially because the law refuses to recognise that gay sex is legitimate consummation. There are other pernickity examples like this which implicitly constitute state-sponsored discrimination.
I think it's probably not so much the case that they refuse to recognise it, it's more that it's too difficult to define. Sex between a man and a woman is well defined. Sex between a man and a man can be sort of defined (although I'm sure there are plenty of male-male couples that don't have anal sex). Sex between two women is pretty damn hard to define.
Although even with straight couples, is it really the government's business what we do in the bedroom? I don't think lack of consumation should be grounds for an anullment regardless of gender. Some couples are happy not having sex at all if they're asexual. It's kind of like saying their marriage doesn't really count because they don't stick body parts into each other.
These are very good points. However, I would dispute your proposition that the state refusal to recognise gay sex is because of its difficulty to define, in contrast with sex between a man and a woman. The current test used by the courts for "straight sex" (if you like) is that only "ordinary and complete" penetration will constitute consummation (D v. A). No orgasm is required, nor conception.
Now using this definition- one can very easily see that it could equally be applied to sex between men (although I agree it is slightly more problematic for women). I'd suggest however, that in this modern age, if non-consummation were to be accepted as a ground for annulment for civil partnerships, then the Court could operate on a "know it when you see it" type rule. The bottom line is- the lack of definition is not prohibitive and if Parliament had wanted to pass it, they would have done. As such, the natural conclusion is that this is a discriminatory measure.
Your other point is very different and is more a question of politics than law. You might very well be right. The thing about the annulment procedures is that they are quite old-fashioned in their approach and obviously because of the ease of divorce these days, no where near as common as they once were. But they do play an important role for religious minorities who do often place a premium on "sexual purity". So I'd say that it's probably right to keep it for the time being. That said, I entirely sympathise with what you're saying.
Now using this definition- one can very easily see that it could equally be applied to sex between men (although I agree it is slightly more problematic for women). I'd suggest however, that in this modern age, if non-consummation were to be accepted as a ground for annulment for civil partnerships, then the Court could operate on a "know it when you see it" type rule. The bottom line is- the lack of definition is not prohibitive and if Parliament had wanted to pass it, they would have done. As such, the natural conclusion is that this is a discriminatory measure.
Your other point is very different and is more a question of politics than law. You might very well be right. The thing about the annulment procedures is that they are quite old-fashioned in their approach and obviously because of the ease of divorce these days, no where near as common as they once were. But they do play an important role for religious minorities who do often place a premium on "sexual purity". So I'd say that it's probably right to keep it for the time being. That said, I entirely sympathise with what you're saying.
Frankly, they should get rid of the consummation bit.
Why the hell is there a law saying that it's required to have sex for your marriage to count?
I mean, if someone withholds sex on the marriage night, it's really f all to do with anyone else, and I don't see how you can prove it either way.
They should get rid of the phrase, or replace it with a general 'had sexytimez' so that any behaviour that the couple counts can count.
Why the hell is there a law saying that it's required to have sex for your marriage to count?
I mean, if someone withholds sex on the marriage night, it's really f all to do with anyone else, and I don't see how you can prove it either way.
They should get rid of the phrase, or replace it with a general 'had sexytimez' so that any behaviour that the couple counts can count.
emmarainbow
Frankly, they should get rid of the consummation bit.
Why the hell is there a law saying that it's required to have sex for your marriage to count?
I mean, if someone withholds sex on the marriage night, it's really f all to do with anyone else, and I don't see how you can prove it either way.
They should get rid of the phrase, or replace it with a general 'had sexytimez' so that any behaviour that the couple counts can count.
Why the hell is there a law saying that it's required to have sex for your marriage to count?
I mean, if someone withholds sex on the marriage night, it's really f all to do with anyone else, and I don't see how you can prove it either way.
They should get rid of the phrase, or replace it with a general 'had sexytimez' so that any behaviour that the couple counts can count.
Generally it's there to prevent 'sham' marriages, and to give unsatisfied couples a get out clause if they're unhappily married and want an annulment xx
blinkbelle
Generally it's there to prevent 'sham' marriages, and to give unsatisfied couples a get out clause if they're unhappily married and want an annulment xx
That brings me to another point. What counts as a "sham" marriage? If I married a friend who I'm not romantically or sexually involved with, purely for financial reasons, that would probably count as a sham marriage. Yet I'm sure there are plenty of marriages that are little more than prostitution. The man pays for his wife's lifestyle, and she has sex with him. And that doesn't count as a sham marriage.
Makes me think more and more that the government should drop the entire concept of marriage from the law. Where it's relevant, laws can be based on cohabitation and being parents.
Yes - why is a marriage with or without sex more or less of a sham? It isn't there for sex-rights anymore.
Related discussions
- Childcare grant and changing application on last term
- Entering civil partnership to get increased funding
- Help with Edexcel AS level politics question
- Certified Translation
- Student finance
- how to become a landlord
- Hinge/Tinder
- wrong marital status on student finance
- Student Finance Asking for Evidence
- Separated parents
- Student Finance England - Parents separating
- Does the CS send postal letters?
- Spouse Visa/Student Loan/Eligibility
- How to change student finance application?
- Childcare Grant and household income
- Eligibility for ADG
- Removing parent from application
- Does applying for higher maintenance loan delay tuition fees if complications happen
- Student loan for independant person separated from spouse
- Engineering
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
