To the best of my knowledge there isn't really any meaningful difference between the two (bar the name), though I'd be happy for some people more knowledgable on the law to correct me.
Because no one has campaigned for it, so the law has never changed. There's literally no advantage to it, so no one really cares about it.
I guess if you wanted to be totally fair then they should be able to, but I don't think anyone is willing to waste that much time and effort on changing such a trivial thing.
There's no need for it. The only reason civil partnerships exist at all is because until recently gay people couldn't get married, and civil partnerships were introduced as an alternative probably because gay marriage would have had even more opposition back then than it gets today.
I think it makes sense to use civil partnerships as a lower tier of marriage. It'd just involve two people signing a form, and all the legislative benefits of marriage, but without the cultural impact.
I think it makes sense to use civil partnerships as a lower tier of marriage. It'd just involve two people signing a form, and all the legislative benefits of marriage, but without the cultural impact.
What does that even mean?
Wouldn't a marriage at a registry office without witnesses do that?
Wouldn't a marriage at a registry office without witnesses do that?
By cultural impact I was referring to the whole wedding culture, this refers to big ceremonies and the fact that many people don't see you as a legitimate couple until marriage.
By cultural impact I was referring to the whole wedding culture, this refers to big ceremonies and the fact that many people don't see you as a legitimate couple until marriage.
Don't have a big ceremoney then?
Would many people see you as a legitimate couple if you'd had a civil partnership?