Marriage and Civil Partnerships: what is the ideal situation?

[kladner]

"Partner" has worked for us for a long time. It also avoids assigning roles, which would probably be misleading or erroneous anyway.

That said, I found the preceding exchange very amusing. Rare form, all of you!

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by kladner

"Partner" has worked for us for a long time. It also avoids assigning roles, which would probably be misleading or erroneous anyway.

Yes, the word serves its purpose, doesn't it?
A problem still arises, of course, if the word only catches on for same sex couples rather than all couples. Unfortunately the Associated Press appears to be set on continuing to use "husband" and "wife" for opposite sex married couples but not for same sex married couples after marriage is opened for all. This would seem to me to be continuing the separate treatment of same sex couples. Still, perhaps it is inevitable that language will take time to evolve and lose its historical anomalies.
Associated Press reaffirms that gay married couples are 'partners' rather than 'husbands' and 'wives' in face of criticism

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Yes, I think "partner" will catch on. It has done here - the word is the same in Dutch - since registered partnerships (1998) and marriage for all couples (2001) were introduced. Yes, you are left asking yourself those questions which were not needed with the sexist and heterosexist old "hubbie" or "trouble and strife", but so what? Ask them if you are interested. People won't take offence: they will more likely be pleased that you take an interest in them.

One problem which arises in practice is that (In British English at least) there is an ambiguity between business partner and social partner. "My partner" might mean someone with whom I live, or someone with whom I work, or both.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by xilman

One problem which arises in practice is that (In British English at least) there is an ambiguity between business partner and social partner. "My partner" might mean someone with whom I live, or someone with whom I work, or both.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that ambiguity!
Now that you mention it, I remember that Nick and I experienced this when we still lived in Britain, which as you know was at that time a considerably less enlightened country on these issues. Nick's father introduced me at a social gathering to a friendly if rather "jolly hockey-sticks" woman, a teacher at the local private girls' school, as Nick's "partner". For the rest of the evening she kept asking whether our business was flourishing, how the markets were doing, and so on. Neither of us, I'm ashamed to say, had the courage to put her right. I guess we were just too British back then: it was easier to go along with this charade than to make her jaw drop and crash a juggernaut through the genteel chit-chat by explaining what she had misunderstood.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by xilman

One problem which arises in practice is that (In British English at least) there is an ambiguity between business partner and social partner. "My partner" might mean someone with whom I live, or someone with whom I work, or both.

Yes. I had to make that distinction at one point when I had both.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Yes, the word serves its purpose, doesn't it?
A problem still arises, of course, if the word only catches on for same sex couples rather than all couples. Unfortunately the Associated Press appears to be set on continuing to use "husband" and "wife" for opposite sex married couples but not for same sex married couples after marriage is opened for all. This would seem to me to be continuing the separate treatment of same sex couples. Still, perhaps it is inevitable that language will take time to evolve and lose its historical anomalies.
Associated Press reaffirms that gay married couples are 'partners' rather than 'husbands' and 'wives' in face of criticism

That may be AP's approach but it remains to be seen whether they will change in the light of public usage.

A married couple I know in Boston (Mass., not Lincs.) refer to each other as their husband.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by kladner

I used to have the attitude that marriage was extraneous to the relationship itself, and something of a distraction from other equal rights issues. However, here in the US only marriage confers a number of privileges not otherwise available. These include tax benefits, pension and Social Security eligibility for partners, and possibly inheritance between partners. Because of these very tangible benefits, I have come to see marriage as a necessary right if civil unions do not confer those same benefits.

The solution is to get rid of the IRS, phase out SS, and fix the problem of privacy legislated by HIPPA so people can just ask the doctor to see their 'spouse' or even just friends.

Marriage is an establishment of religion. The state's got no business.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Andrew

The solution is to get rid of the IRS, phase out SS, and fix the problem of privacy legislated by HIPPA so people can just ask the doctor to see their 'spouse' or even just friends.

Marriage is an establishment of religion. The state's got no business.

A moment ago you were asking for advice for programming.

Now you have the audacity to advise for morality.

WTF???

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by chalsall

A moment ago you were asking for advice for programming.

Now you have the audacity to advise for morality.

WTF???

No, this is political philosophy. I don't care who gets married. I don't believe in marriage. And its against the 1st amendment here in the US, for anyone.

[Andrew]

I don't need the government to tell me who I love and who loves me. In fact, I'd prefer they don't.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Andrew

And its against the 1st amendment here in the US, for anyone.

That doesn't seem to reconcile with the words printed on just about every US of A bill and coin....