Marriage - yay or nay?

[JosieRosie]

This old chestnut again! DP and I have been together for 6 and a half years. I have many problems with marriage - patriarchal history, the wisdom and plausibility of promising to be together forever, the fact that many people still view a wife as a husband's 'property', wife legally a husband's sex slave until a mere 20 years ago. The traditional wedding ceremony (engagement ring, white dress, giving away the bride) sends me into a right frothy but I know all those things are optional these days!

Anyway, I have always been staunchly against marriage, but recently I have been thinking how nice it would be to have a day where you celebrate your relationship, and where you make your relationship more 'formal'. I'm not religious and not remotely interested in a big celebrity-type 'bash', and we're not close to our families, and are not planning any children, so I'm not sure what it is exactly that I'm finding attractive about the idea of marriage but something has got me thinking!

Please share your feeling and experiences, positive or negative, about marriage from a feminist point of view
Thanks

[CailinDana]

My feminist credentials are practically non-existent, but here's my take on it:

Marriage is first and foremost a legal contract. If you feel committed to a person and want to stay with them for a long time then it is very very important to get married IMO as it offers legal protection to the couple. All assets automatically become joint assets, you become your partner's next of kin so have legal rights when it comes to illness and death, you automatically inherit your partner's assets if he or she dies without paying any tax, and if any children do come along then the relationship between father and child in particular is cemented in law. I think it's very foolish for a committed couple not to protect themselves in this way.

As for the points you've raised, they are all valid and I think a lot of people do find that their relationship changes in some way after marriage, in some good ways and in some bad ways. I think most people would agree there is a satisfying sense of completion about being married and it gives a lovely feeling of being secure and being a family. However some people find that traditional roles are foisted upon them more after marriage, possibly because the traditional (sexist) image of "husband" and "wife" is so ingrained in our psyche. It's important I think to fight against that and to try to maintain balance in the relationship.

As you know, you can just pop along to the registry office with two witnesses and no fuss so the traditional trappings can be avoided. A big wedding day (minus the sexist elements) can be great fun though!

[sunshineandbooks]

I've been married and divorced without children and also left a long-term co-habiting relationship with children.

I don't actually want to ever have another living together relationship (married or otherwise) so I'm not really the best person to answer this, but hypothetically speaking, I would only contemplate marriage again with someone who was 100% my equal in every way in terms of contribution to the marriage, whether that's financial or otherwise.

I can't help feeling that in the past marriage granted men power over women and allowed them to be exploited. In the present, marriage means that women who have bucked the trend and become the main earners get taken to the cleaners when they divorce, even if there are no children involved.

I would have quite happily divided my assets with my DCs father if he'd been contributing his part by looking after the DC, helping with housework, being emotionally supportive, etc, but he did none of those things, hence my wanting to leave him in the first place. If I had been married to my DCs father, I know he would have tried to take me for everything he could get, none of which he either earned, contributed to or deserved. I am incredibly thankful I never married him.

OTOH, for many women, who are still the second earners or SAHMs, marriage offers them some protection in the event of divorce (although if the statistics are anything to go by, it's amazing how little the law is able to enforce divorced men to pay maintenance/mortgage payments on time, if at all).

It may sound cynical but marriage is only a good idea when there is either true equality or the person you're marrying has more to lose than you. You may be better off just having a hell of a party and seeing a solicitor to build up a custom-made contract tailored to you and your DPs specific needs. More expensive but probably more useful if things went wrong.

And for all that, I'm an old romantic at heart and love a good wedding.

[wamster]

I don't really care to be truthful. Marriage itself is what the couple make it-at heart, it is a legal contract.

It has its advantages and its disadvantages.
Advantages in that if a person leaves job to become sahp this will be recognised as having worth and liable for compensation from other spouse if thing break down.
The disadvantage is that cohabiting relationships are not recognised as having legal rights (other than those that are explicit such as a joint mortgage etc) so that a lot of sahp's lose out.
But, then again, I am very much against cohabitee rights as nobody should be made de facto married by the state.

Then again, the advantage with cohabitation is that there is no need (apart from the divvying up of jointly held assets and childcare) to go through the courts to end things. You can get up and leave.

Swings and roundabouts.

[LornaGoon]

I have quite strong 'views' about marriage, and weddings, similar to the OP and could spit bile with rage when women talk about being 'given away by their father' to their new husband and it supposedly being 'the happiest day of your life', implying that it's all down hill after that.

I also have an intense fear of being a Wife if I got married when my partner would still get to be himself.

And yet, also like the OP, there is something about celebrating your relationship formally and sorting things out legally seems really appealing.

What I find more difficult to reconcile is the fact that when I saw pictures of my ex at his wedding I felt jealous! Not that I want to be with my ex, he's an emotional tool, but that there is a space for people to celebrate their relationship and are protected legally, but it's just so flawed.

[sportsfanatic]

May I offer a thought as someone who has been a feminist (since kindergarten!) but has also been married for 45 years. If you start off as an equal partnership, where, apart from the messy childbearing bit, you are both willing to share or swap roles as circumstances require then marriage has everything going for it.

If there is any suggestion that either partner has set ideas on roles or is wary of sharing/swapping etc. do not get married.

[GothAnneGeddes]

I view it as a legal contract. I think the idea that cohabiting gives you equal rights is a huge misconception and I think it's very much in men's interests that cohabiting has become so popular.

I also loathe the culture of overspending wildly on the wedding, mainly becuase it leads to people delaying and sometimes never getting married because they're waiting until they can afford their "dream wedding". If you want to make this legal commitment for the very good reasons Calin stated in her second paragraph, you can do so without spending stupid amounts of money.

[falasportugues]

nay

[lostlady]

I love being married; equal partnership to deal with the big wide world, I feel it gives me security and happiness. I think it's the same for DH. We had an informal celebration for us, friends and close family, it was lovely, recommend it. Do not feel has made me less of an independent woman, actually probably quite the opposite.

[falasportugues]

sorry... to add.. my upbringing and life experience has taught me not to formally marry... however a close friend with similar experiences is now getting married, and this is really positive for her, because of the cultural importance to her fiance.

The verb in Portuguese to marry is casar, like the word casa, house, so to marry is essentially to set up home together..... I like to think! That's the crucial thing, not the status/ ceremony

[rosy71]

I think that, if you're not married, you have to be careful to keep everything equal. Anyone who becomes a SAHP whilst not married is walking on very thin ice. Marriage does offer protection legally.

We have been together 14 years and have 2 children but are not married. I was never bothered about getting married until we had ds1. I became keen on the idea then because I thought it offered more legal rights to the children and would make us more of a proper family. Now that ds1 is almost 7, it doesn't seem so important again because we've managed this far!

Ultimately, I think anyone with children is better off married. There's just a lot I don't like about it. I do like wearing my engagement ring even though I can see it's a bit unequal because dp doesn't wear one.

[JosieRosie]

Thanks so much for all your thoughts, really interesting. sportsfantatic, feminist since kindergarten? Respect!
I completely understand and agree with the benefits of being married if you have children, however that's not an issue for us. What I would really love is to have a civil partnership - a legal contract that says you are each other's next of kin, without any sexist traditions or baggage about 'til death do us part' or talk of diamond rings and white dresses. I see that our delightful government are planning to introduce civil marriage for gay couples (yay) but not planning to extend civil partnerships to hetero couples. This gives me the rage! Check out the Equal Love website for more details if you're interested. Those lovely folks are launching a legal challenge as they say that not allowing marriage/civil partnerships for all contravenes human rights. It will probably take 3-5 years but I think I'm going to live in hope!

[wamster]

What is the point of civil partnerships for heterosexuals? A couple who do not want the 'baggage' of marriage can already go down the register office and get married in their jeans -rings, dresses etc are not compulsory! I don't recall saying 'til death us do part' in the register office!

What goes on in a marriage is up to the couple involved- the outside world e.g. legal systems and benefit systems will ^treat a heterosexual married couple and a civilly-partnered heterosexual couple in exactly the same way if civil partnerships come in, anyway.

MASSIVE WASTE of time and, to be honest, you've got no chance because the -entirely logical -argument is that:
A, MARRIAGE is what people make of it.

B, Civil partnerships for gay people are more or less identical as civil marriages for heterosexual people. so bringing in civil partnerships is utterly pointless.

With respect, get over yourself. You don't have to have a ceremony and what you make of your marriage is up to you PLUS even if civil partnerships do come in married heterosexuals will be treated in exactly same way as civilly-partnered heterosexuals.

[JosieRosie]

'With respect, get over yourself'

That's not a very respectful thing to say, however you phrase it Yes I take your point that relationships, including marriages, are different, and are what you make them, but marriages comes with a very loaded history of woman as property. It's not just about what you wear to the ceremony. I fully accept that many couples ignore the nasty sexist aspects of marriage and live in equal, loving partnerships but for me personally, I still have a problem with so many aspects of marriage that it's not something I want to be a part of.
Marriage and the act of promising to love each other forever (yes of course I know you can get divorced) is something that means a lot to some people but I would prefer a civil partnership which says that you are each others legal partners and next-of-kin. To me, this feels inherently more equal than 'husband' and 'wife' and I feel I (and others who feel the same) should have the option to choose this route instead of marriage.

[wamster]

Well, don't be part of marriage, then.

But don't be naive, either. Marriage is what a couple make of it.

As for heterosexual civil partnerships being seen as somehow different to heterosexual marriage by the outside world. That I am afraid is rubbish..


If heterosexual civil partnerships come in those in them will be treated in exactly the same way as those in heteroseuxal marriages.

The law will treat them as being exactly the same thing. It will be as difficult- or as easy- to leave a civil partnership as a marriage.
If a person is unfortunate enough to require benefits, the benefits advisor will not turn around and say: 'Ah, you're in a civil partnership you won't be classed as married'. They'll be seen as exactly the same thing to the outside world.

If you don't want the 'baggage' of marriage- go down the register office in your jeans and a couple of witnesses. It's really up to you.

Civil partnerships for heterosexual people are really, really pointless. It was only right that they were brought in for gay people. Absolutely right that gay people had access to them, but, I'll tell you this: your attitude that civil partnerships are somehow 'lesser' than marriage is really offensive to gay people who do see their civil partnership as being as serious and solemn as marriage.

[wamster]

The 'baggage' comes from the outside world, can't you see that? The expectation of financial support would be exactly the same for a het (erosexual) civilly partnered couple as those that are heterosexual married. FACT.

[vixsatis]

Marriage is useful in order to establish a legal foundation for a family; and I think it is good before having children to have decided and made public that you at least intend to stay together for good. I disapprove of cohabitees rights because the establishment of a legal bond should be decided upon deliberately rather than just fallen into. There should be the option of living together without commitment.

Much of the history and trimming is pretty ghastly and I wouldn't have done it at all until marital rape was acknowledged and women were entitled to fill in their own tax returns. I do no wear an engagement or a wedding ring, I did not change my name and I certainly wasn't given away.

DH and I are committed and we are extremely equal. Marriage reflects our reality

[JosieRosie]

'I'll tell you this: your attitude that civil partnerships are somehow 'lesser' than marriage is really offensive to gay people who do see their civil partnership as being as serious and solemn as marriage'

wamster, why the tone? I do not consider civil partnerships in any way 'lesser' and I haven't alluded to this in my previous posts. That's your attitude, not mine. I'm not interested in taking marriage away from people who want it, it's just not something that everyone wants to be involved in. There's also a suggestion that civil partnerships should be opened up to pairs of people who are not in a sexual relationship - friends, long-term housemates, distant relatives etc - who want to be each others legal partner and next-of-kin, with all the financial rights that would involve. So with civil partnerships there is no expectation at all about the nature of the relationship, it's considered to be the private business of the individuals to define it for themselves.

'I disapprove of cohabitees rights because the establishment of a legal bond should be decided upon deliberately rather than just fallen into. There should be the option of living together without commitment'

I completely agree vixsatis

[wamster]

JosieRosie, you can argue with me as much as you like, my reasoning is sound and logical, yours is not.

Because:
a, Marriage is what the couple make it themselves.

b, The outside world will -if heterosexual civil partnerships are brought in- see them as being akin to heterosexual marriage.

In short, campaigning for heterosexual civil partnerships is a massive waste of time. I mean, what's it all about, anyway? Changing legal framework just because some people are a bit offended by things they don't have to do? (NOBODY has to wear a ring, or even change their name. Literally, 20 minutes in a register office in jeans will sort everything out) and don't like the 'baggage' of marriage? .

To be frank, it's just ridiculous that the law should be altered to give heterosexual people an option that they already have i.e. marriage.

[JosieRosie]

OK wamster, let's agree to disagree shall we? Not interested in arguing with you any more and you seem very angry about something that doesn't affect you.

'campaigning for heterosexual civil partnerships is a massive waste of time'
Thank you for that. I think I will carry on anyway.

[wamster]

Oh it does affect me, JosieRosie, I live in the UK and it makes me mad as heck that something that is such of a waste of time as heterosexual civil partnerships is given the time of day when it could be spend on more important issues (issues that actually made sense!).

I was behind the civil partnerships campaign for gay people 100%. Your campaign is just nonsense.
It will fail, by the way. It will fail because straight people already have the option of civil marriage.

[MoreBeta]

Josie - as others said, marriage provides a significant amount of legal protection to women and most especially if a relationship breaks down and there are children involved. Nowadays, men do not gain any rights over a woman by marrying her but women certainly do gain rights that unmarried co-habiting women do not have. Many women do not realise how little protection they have in a cohabiting arrangement until it goes wrong.

That said (and as a man I admittedly may have a different take on things) to me this bit of what you said is what marriage is about and why me and DW got married.

"I have been thinking how nice it would be to have a day where you celebrate your relationship, and where you make your relationship more 'formal'.

It was a joyful day for us but also a day we made a very very solemn promise and I certainly felt the weight of that promise as we said our vows. We lived together about 5 years before marriage but I recommend it to any couple who are truely commited to each other and certainly if they have or plan to have children.

White dresses, cakes and relatives are all optional and looking back I wish we had dispensed with all of those.

[JosieRosie]

Thanks MoreBeta, I agree completely about the importance of legal protection, especially if having children. Most of the comments on this thread have been really helpful and interesting and have helped me to realise that actually, marriage is not something I feel is suitable for me. That's no judgement of anyone else's relationship by the way - if you're getting married, it absolutely should be regarded as a solemn promise and something you take extremely seriously. It should enhance your commitment to each other. However, it's not right for everyone and obviously it's only something you should enter into if you feel fully invested in the whole idea.

[sunshineandbooks]

While there is no discernible difference between the legalities of a marriage and a civil partnership, I can see where Josie coming from.

When civil partnerships were brought in they were branded differently. If there is no difference between marriage and a civil partnership, why not just extend marriage to non heterosexual couples and use the term 'marriage' instead of calling it something else entirely? If it's to differentiate between heterosexual couples and everyone else, then marriage and civil partnerships are different, surely. You can certainly argue that it's a difference in name only, but then you could also argue that words and names are important and if a name change is so unimportant, why the need to change the name in the first place?

Personally, I don't think it makes much difference and if you are anti-marriage I think it would make more sense to reject both marriage and civil partnerships and go down the (infinitely more time-consuming and costly) route of having a non-standard, legally defined contract drawn up with a partner defining the specific details in your own particular relationship.

And then have a party

[wamster]

They should have just called civil partnerships 'gay marriage' (perhaps omitting the word 'gay') and been done with it. The whole thing was a sop to the right-wing traditionalists who didn't want gays to marry.

As a result we now get nonsense about civil partnerships for heterosexual people, and, I'm sorry but I don't want to upset anybody but I think this is nonsense: civil partnerships for heterosexuals will be identical to marriage for straight people. No difference in how you are treated at all!



I agree with sunshineandbooks; logically, if a person rejects marriage they have to reject civil partnerships, too because they are essentially the same
Her last paragraph is pure sense!

[scottishmummy]

Can still celebrate anniversaries and significant dates if unmarried
Marrieds don't have the sole dibs on displays of significance or affection.frankly if you want to marry do so,but dont just buckle to societal pressures to commit or demonstrably show it's valid and authentic relationship