Shouldn't we just do away with marriage?

[levington]

Two issues have made me think about feminism in the last week. They may seem unrelated, but I actually think they are part of the same problem.

First up, gay marriage.
The second item being the case of the husband accused of raping his wife on their wedding night.

At first they seem unconnected, however, I think they are linked. Please allow me to explain:

Gay marriage sounds fair on first examination, but is it really? Are we not just extending the notion of conjugal rights -after all, marriage can be voided through non-consummation and adultery a reason for divorce to another group of people?

The man was cleared; make of that what you will. But comments underneath the story ranged from: 'men have right to sex on wedding night'.

By continuing with marriage and its intrinsic conjugal element, aren't we just encouraging this sort of crap?
I know that rape in marriage is illegal, but the general consensus seems to be that men are entitled to sex on wedding night. Is this a good thing?

My solution would be to turn the gay marriage thing on its head and gain true equality by offering civil partnerships to all.

What do you all think?

[Alameda]

you need the anti-gay marriage poster, they go on and on and on and on and on and on about it and I think they were quite obsessed with consummation for a while and how our 'finest legal brains' would struggle to define it or something

surely the actual travesty is how any of our finest legal brains ended up drafting legislation though instead of making £££

[Chubfuddler]

I think a civil partnership can be dissolved for exactly the same reasons as a marriage. You use the same forms, same court process, everything is the same.

I haven't read about the wedding night rape but I jobs it hard up believe he was acquitted because there is a right to wedding night sex, because there quite clearly isn't.

[Sanjeev]

I know that rape in marriage is illegal, but the general consensus seems to be (that men are entitled to sex on wedding night.)

Well, is that just the perfect radical feminist statement? Firstly (outside the bracket) acknowledge that something nasty, perverse and simply wrong is in fact outside the law. Secondly (inside the bracket), ditch this in order to perpetuate an outdated, unsubstantiated myth that fits in with what you really want to believe, without any evidence whatsoever.

I am beginning to see two camps within feminism. One of them is really not nice.

[msrisotto]

Actually Sanjeev, she provided the reasoning behind saying that as through the comments under the article. It is common knowledge that such commentsare commonly found on articles online. Thanks for your contribution but do refrain from posting ignorant views.

[minimathsmouse]

I have always, maybe wrongly (I stand to be corrected) thought that marriage is something that occurs in church or for those that are religious, it forms the same legal basis for a commitment/a marriage that is performed in a registry office. Is a registry office wedding less legally binding than a church wedding? Is a church wedding a more morally binding contract? Are the same rights and responsibilities not lawfully conveyed?

I'm not Christian so I don't have a bias but it seems to me that Christianity puts forward the claim that men and women should marry to procreate the species and that marriage occurs for that reason btw a man and a woman. The nonsense that is the act of consumation seems to be based on church doctrine, just as it always has but strangely remains lawful in other forms of marriage/legal union but is in fact related to the procreation the species that should spring forth from marriage, the whole basis of the institution.

If I were gay I might have a problem with the teachings of the church, the really fundamental things like "thou shalt not sodomise" etc,,,,,,, why do the gay rights lobbyist insist on changing the church from within, why not instead shun it.

[Sanjeev]

Oh really. So when it is stated that 'but the general consensus seems to be that men are entitled to sex on wedding night', then by general consensus, we mean a few people posting on a web article. Okay, I stand corrected. Otherwise, the statement sounds like something far more sinister, which we wouldn't want - would we?

[levington]

Civil partnerships do not reference sex at all-this is why the two sisters who argued that they should be entitled to one, thought they had a case (or rather their lawyer did).

What's wrong with putting forward the idea that marriage should be banished to allow for civil partnerships? Wouldn't it help to have a system that made no reference at all to sex but provided same legal rights?

You know while rape is illegal within marriage, the conjugal aspect sends out the message that men are entitled to sex.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Marriage already makes no reference to sex. There's a brief & optional mention in the religious ceremony about the production of children but there's nothing in any ceremony, civil or otherwise, that says anything about sex.

[levington]

I beg to differ; non-consummation can be used to end a marriage. The point is this: why should it even be there today?

[Alameda]

is it ever used? it's a sort of historical curiosity

[Chubfuddler]

I only know of one person whose marriage was annulled for non consummation, it was a man who refused to do the consummating because he was secretly gay.

Marriage is historically the framework for raising a family. If you don't want to live like that, don't. Id imagine there are many happily non sexual marriages out there.

But don't imagine for a moment that doing away with marriage us going to stop women being abused by male partners. There are plenty of unmarried women posting about rape within a relationship on this forum.

[HopeForTheBest]

I agree that the non-consummation aspect suggests that it is an intrinsic part of a marriage agreement. In fact, I seem to remember a case I linked to (think it was in France) where one partner divorced the other and the reason cited was that they had refused to have sex with them. The court agreed that sex was an important part of marriage and withholding it was grounds for divorce.
Interestingly, though, Î believe it was a woman who was divorcing her husband for not having sex with her.

So I would amend what you've written to "the conjugal aspect sends out the message the men and women are entitled to sex within marriage".

[minimathsmouse]

The church monopolised marriage during the medieval period. Divorce was made illegal but marriage could be dissolved by the church under certain circs, one being non-consummation. So yes OP you are entirely right to ask whether this implies a husbands right to sex on his wedding night and indeed every night thereafter. The consummation of marriage is linked to the fact that the church and men in general saw to it that marriage was a legal frame work under which women were owned as a means of procreation, which obv necessitates having sex with the man.

[minimathsmouse]

Interesting point HopeForTheBest, under Jewish law women have always been able to divorce the husband for not fulfilling his duty under Jewish law.

[KRITIQ]

Yeah, I'd go for having the only legally recognised partnerships being civil partnerships, but still permitting faith communities, humanist groups or others to have their own style recognition ceremonies or rituals, but that don't have any legal status as such.

[HopeForTheBest]

Here in Germany you can only get married at the registry office by a regsitrar. Church ceremonies are purely for "show" iykwim.

[HopeForTheBest]

I don't think you can precribe to people how much (if at all) sex should be part of their lawful contract with one another. The more I think about it, actually, the more bizarre it sounds.

Having said that, though, I also do expect sex to be an important part of (my) marriage.

Hmmm.
It's a hard one.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

"non-consummation can be used to end a marriage."

Can be. Rarely is. You'd hope that any loving couple, same or different gender, would enjoy consensual sex as part of their relationship but I expect there are more then a few that stay voluntarily celibate and don't feel it is grounds for divorce.

The marriage ceremony includes the worlds 'all my worldly goods' but that isn't carte blanche for theft. And I think you're find 'until death us do part' isn't suggesting that murder is a legitimate way out either.

[minimathsmouse]

KQ (hope that is ok) I agree. The other major three haven't monopolised marriage legally and morally. That is why no one is seeking to impose change or to undermine their ceremonies.

It would be better to wrestle the legality of marriage away from the church. Rather all commitments should be equal but if you want it blessed find a church, a religion or other even a humanist if that's you bag, to bless your union.

In terms of whether marriage is about/shuld incl cluases in relation to consummation or even procreation, I would think that in some relationships it might not be possible or even desirable to consummate the marriage in the way that the church decrees, let alone take into account the fact that some people do not even wish to have children.

[Chubfuddler]

You can annul a marriage that had never been consummated; otherwise the breakdown of the sexual relationship could be pleaded as unreasonable behaviour. What's wrong with that?

[TeiTetua]

It was only a few weeks ago that marriage versus civil partnership was discussed here, and it was clear that they are legally exactly the same, except in name. Yet some activists still say same-sex contracts need to be called "marriage" to be fully equal, and some people want civil partnerships for heteros, in order to avoid the psychological/social baggage implied by "marriage".

Don't they have a dual system in France? I think the modern tradition is that a couple get married in church, then they visit the town hall where the mayor makes it official in the eyes of the state. I assume non-religious people skip the church part.

[Chubfuddler]

No one inspects the bed sheets after you get married you know. If two marrying people are happy never to consummate that's up to them.

[minimathsmouse]

Why not just do away with the whole thing. Why anyone wants to make a commitment legal beats me! it's all about protection of private property isn't it. One of the first forms of private property was probably goats, soon after came money and then women. Why even get suckered into it

[minipie]

I know that rape in marriage is illegal, but the general consensus seems to be that men are entitled to sex on wedding night. My solution would be to turn the gay marriage thing on its head and gain true equality by offering civil partnerships to all.

Er no. My solution would be to make sure that people know men are not entitled to sex on their wedding night (or at any other time).

And I don't really think that is the general consensus. Just the view of some idiots who posted on an online article.

So, I'm with Sanjeev on this one.

[carernotasaint]

Marriage.......Great for the man. Lousy for the woman.

Quote from Jack Nickolson in The Witches of Eastwick which was made in 1987.