Back to blog

What is a civil partnership?

See blog

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Peter T916

Civil partnership is long overdue in any democratic and secular country. Blog very well explained that this started as a push for equality by LGBT groups, but in these days I would welcome something more modern than thousands years old religious tradition that by substance has not changed much to these days. I understand the reasons the couple mentioned was pursuing their cause. It's just additional option for other couples (hetero or homosexual) to have without all the other spectacle of marriage. France example is really good one, civil unions are on the rise and traditional marriage goes down. It would also add LGBT cause more fuel if they would team up with hetero couples to fight for the same cause in many countries, together they would have more numbers and fire power

Houshu

Ah, "civil partnership", a cute little name for "friends with benefits AND legal status".
....and 'childless' is a part of 'benefits', yes?

California Man

What a wonderful idea. Unless you're unlucky enough to be a child produced on one of these not-quite-married partnerships. While your parents dither and avoid commitments, you'll be left holding the bag when they change their mind about being together.
----
As long as there are no children who get punished, OK. The moment these 'partnerships' start producing young ones...

Hedgefundguy in reply to California Man

While your parents dither and avoid commitments, you'll be left holding the bag when they change their mind about being together.
.
C'mon, you know the old joke.
.
50% of marriages end in divorce.
.
The other 50% end in death.
.
NSFTL
Regards

L-gharef

God, people are ridiculous. If couples (trios or a whole group of people, for that matter) think the commitment or restrictions of marriage are not for them, they can simply shack up. It's really not complicated. Marry and live with the rights and responsibilities that marriage brings about or cohabit and enjoy the libertarianism of legal singlehood.
.
The only reason states have any interest in regulating couples' unions, anyway, is to give resulting children a stable environment to grow up in. Otherwise, the state ends up having to be fatherless and motherless children's mum and dad. In fact, I don't understand why homosexuals bother at all with state regulated unions at all when they live in blissfully childless relationships which don't need to be regulated at all.

Hedgefundguy in reply to L-gharef

God, people are ridiculous. If couples (trios or a whole group of people, for that matter) think the commitment or restrictions of marriage are not for them, they can simply shack up.
.
Which many do, sometimes for one night.
.
Otherwise, the state ends up having to be fatherless and motherless children's mum and dad.
.
Already there, as over 40% of births in the US are bastards.
.
So keep working, and pay your Federal, State, Local income taxes, as well as your property taxes.
.
I don't understand why homosexuals bother at all with state regulated unions at all when they live in blissfully childless relationships which don't need to be regulated at all.
.
They can adopt children easier as a couple.
.
The joys the LBJ's "Great Society" are upon us.
.
NSFTL
Regards