General Chat

You may well be right, Island. Having been married for almost 60 years, I hadn't really thought about it in detail, but most new proposals have pros and cons, depending on your personal viewpoint.

I agree about "labelling" children, but I'm not sure changing the law will help. These are entrenched attitudes, like racism and sectarianism, and only time will change them. I think primary school is the place to start.

I think that legitimacy is mostly about inheritance now.

When the current Lord Cowdray dies, his eldest son will not inherit the title because his parents were not married.

Rights and inheritance are still largely based on legitimacy.

Like it or like it not,



zer lerr izz zer lerr


doesn't bother me either way....

The law should be changed Andysmum and abolish the stigmatising of children.

What are you thinking the 'advantages and disadvantages' are? I'm thinking civil reg will turn disadvantages into advantages ie equal rights.

I agree that children shouldn't be stigmatised because their parents aren't married, nor, as used to happen, if their parents are divorced, but they are legally illegitimate. Civil marriages will solve that.

There are advantages and disadvantages, but at least the option is now available for those who want it.

Children shouldn't be stigmatised because their parents have chosen not to marry, Bob. I thought we'd moved on from that.

I may get back to you on that Dermot :-S

The position of a husband in the family is superficial & incidental, while that of a mother is fundamental & supreme. ;-)

Well........I didn't know that!!


Parents of a new-born child are legally required to register the birth within 42 days in order to obtain a birth certificate and give the baby a legal identity.

However, the Legitimacy Act requires parents to re-register the birth if they subsequently get married, even if the father is already on the birth certificate.

According to the Equal Civil Partnerships campaign group, town hall clerks appear to be applying this to the thousands of mixed-sex civil partnerships expected over the next year.

Since the earliest date on which these couples could notify of their intention to form a civil partnership, December 2, the campaign’s Facebook page has been inundated with messages expressing bewilderment, concern and anger that existing children could be deemed in any way illegitimate.








but surely, if you are not married, and have children........they ARE......?????

So a good reason to have a Civil partnership, then?
Non-religious, not sexist, but ensures the Council/Government doesn't get what you've worked for /protected/treated well :-D

We have been together thirty-two years without any outside interference but it would be good to get a bit more of his pension when I kill him or he would get the tenancy if he got to me first.

I got married in a Registry Office - and wore maroon (actually a very loose Indian dress, that didn't quite hide the bump) :-D
We had 4 people there (brother's motorbike broke down), my mum, herr 'fascisto' (her husband), ex's aunt and her best friend (from Sri Lanka), so that was a good mix!

Went back to our house for the 'reception' - sandwiches - and our workmates from the farm & veg. factory turned up in their lunch hour. :-D :-D :-D :-D
I went to bed - very bad morning sickness.


......just like to add, ex and I had been 'going out' for 6 years!

I always thought that if I had wanted to wear white I would have been a painter and decorator.

If I ever 'committed' again, I'd go for a Civil Partnership too :-D :-D

Exactly Sharron :-D

I've never wanted to be 'princess' for the day and hated the idea of being regarded as a mans property to be handed over to another man. etc etc etc.....

Some couples just don't want to bow down to what others think they should do.

For one thing I would never want to be thought of as a respectable married woman.

I suppose you get the legalities tied up without it being anybody elses business.

Call me a bit daft but civil partnerships came about for gay couples as the nearest thing to a marriage awhile ago as before marriage wasn't possible between same sex couples. ok I get that.
So why would a straight couple want a civil partnership instead of a marriage?

If they get the same rights etc as a married couple, then whats the point of a civil partnership?
Sorry is it just me or does anyone else think the same?


Florence in the hebrides
:-S :-S

As one that went down the traditional route, nearly 60 years ago,

there seems to be some merit in the latest version of unification......


although it appears to be that as you ain't actually married....you cant get divorced???

and like it or not the other partners kids are now your step children.....

we will :-D it tidies up legal imbalances.

Sexual regulations within marriage may be defined as the association of mates for the care of their offspring.

Marriage is a variable institution, which has passed through almost every conceivable form & experiment in the course of its history from the primitive care of offspring without association of mates to the modern association of mates without the production of any offspring.

I don't suppose we will be bothered to do that either.