Marriage - yay or nay?

Other way round here too, wanted the marriage but not the wedding, would have quite happily just eloped, but made do with a small quiet wedding. Lots of fuss is SO not me!

I'm the other way round. If I could wake up tomorrow and be married to my partner, I'd be perfectly fine with that. The thought of being trussed up in a white dress and pretending to be a virgin for the day and having to be the centre of attention and be photographed constantly doesn't appeal. Vegas, anyone?

I'd quite enjoy having a wedding. A frock, a party, lots of people making a fuss...what's not to like?

Marriage, on the other hand, does not fry my onion at all.

Josie - I much prefer the word partner to wife. Maybe it's a linguistic issue, like the way my mum calls black people 'coloured' still. If I'm honest I loathe the word. So if I could have the legal benefits of marriage but with no wifey stuff or wedding or ownership associations then possibly I would have that option. It is probably just in my head but it is so ingrained ( the property and ownership associations of marriage I mean). Sorry rather rambling.

I'm hard as nails so I don't cry, but they can be a good day out and an opportunity to meet new people and nice food and all that.
I used to be a bit po-faced about weddings, but as one wise poster pointed out to me: 'Come on, it's an excuse to get out of the trackie bottoms and there's free food and booze!'
Nothing wrong with occasions -they mark out life. But the thought of being a 'bride' has never appealed to me. I really am one of those people who would have got married in jeans. I dragged myself to the shops a few days before to buy something a bit smarter.

well the marrieds are surely going to effuse about the institution - they see the value else they wouldn't have done it. Rather than trying to lure people into some sinister cult

love is a wonderful thing
gay love,straight love,hug a tree love
just make sure you tie up the legalities. and i love a guid wedding.im first on dance floor,last to leave and am guaranteed to cry

scottishmummy, I realise that any relationship can be fraught. Please re-read my post at 19.17, my point is that the good side of an unmarried couple sorting out their own legal affairs is that they can arrange them to suit themselves. That's all I meant, nothing else.
Believe me, I have zero problem with accepting that some marriages are terrible and some cohabiting relationships are great!

wamster any relationship.married or not can be fraught. the nature of human relationships is that many people have pasts and secrets.not just unmarried folk.only got to look at mn relationships/aibu to see the tumultous marriage threads too

There is an element of marriage (and civil partnerships) of not knowing precisely what you are getting into. I doubt many people know all the implications of it. An ex-spouse/civil partner crawling out of the woodwork to claim monies even after divorce by way of example.
There is something to be said for sorting the legalities out how you want them to be and nothing else.

marriage. never fancied it.at all
but certainly we have tied up all the legalities.

scottishmummy, you're clearly very organised and efficient and have sorted everything out and in your case there isn't any practical reason to be married, so if you don't want to be that's the end of the story. And of course I agree that love, cohesion, mutual respect etc are not the exclusive preserve of married couples!

But as this thread shows, lots of people aren't that organised -the practical advantage of marriage is that it sorts out all the legalities without couples having to sit down and think about lots of unpleasant possible scenarios - all they have to do is plan a celebration of their relationship, and all the unpleasant stuff gets tied up without them actually having to think about it. Let's face it, no-one likes planning for what happens when they die. If they did more people would have wills. Even fewer people want to sit down and think seriously about what happens if they split up.

quite simply have never wanted to be married.at all
and one can find an abundance of love and cohesion without marriage
commitment,cohesion,mutual respect are not exclusive to marriage.absence of marriage doesnt indicate absence of commitment or harmony.

but somehow many marrieds feel compelled to effuse on and on about marriage as if by some war of attrition talking about it will render it more appealing. and anecdotal stories of so and so woman never married - partner died now penury. so uh-ho watch oot...

im not anti-marriage im just not married,and don't see its necessity

I think marriage is ace. I don't think anyone wants a partnership of the sort we're all talking about with someone they don't want the following from (in addition to legalities):

• love
• emotional commitment
• trust and openness

Marriage is a simple legal ceremony which aims IMO to celebrate the above in addition to providing the legal protection which is the main reason lots of posters here want to make some kind of a commitment. For me personally, legality was the last thing on my mind - I wanted a party to celebrate the love and commitment me and DH share, and for all our friends and family to share in our happiness and toast us, and wish us luck with our partnership!

I think if no-one had invented marriage, women and men would be keen to make this particular legal agreement one which is also a celebration. And there's nothing wrong with that IMO - across MN there can be sniffiness at celebrations of marriage which are seen as extravagant, which I think is really sad. There ain't much in life worth celebrating with as much pizzazz as the slightly awe-inspiring agreement to love and trust each other completely, with legal backing. I just can't see how a belief in romantic love is anything unfeminist. Modern marriage is entirely feminist by nature - I think people's issues with it including yours, OP, stem from the patriarchy's design of the ceremony itself rather than anything fundamentally wrong with he concept of marriage or of weddings.

JosieRosie, I think you need to grow up about this issue. The feminist forum is not one where everybody agrees and I am not being condescending to your nor am I being patronising.

You did not, in my opinion, come on here for a genuine discussion about the pro's and con's of marriage.

I think you came here to push your agenda for civil partnerships-which given that they are identical to civil marriage for heterosexual people, are pointless.

And also I feel that it is appropriate to point out on the feminist forum that a woman who is trapped in a marriage will be equally trapped in a civil partnership.
I also feel it is important to point out that if civil partnerships as they stand would deny women the option of dissolving the relationship on grounds of their partner having sex with other people. Because it would.
Forget the 'PACS' agreement, they don't exist in the UK.

In short, I have responded appropriately to your notion that civil partnerships are somehow great for women and given my opinion that they ain't all they are cracked up to be.

I think you have deceived people with your opening post.
You don't want marriage which is fair enough. Believe me, I am not criticising you for not wanting to get married, but you want what most people think of as being marriage i.e. civil partnerships (in the UK, there is no difference between CP's and marriage from a legal viewpoint).

It's the equivalent of opening a thread about how terrible Pepsi is as it rots teeth, multinational, taking over the world etc and then suddenly announcing that Coke is OK.

This is quite a funny thread for me as I can't relate to the connotations of 'wife' and so on at all. I had no bridesmaids and wasn't given away (?) and continued to call myself by my usual name and just had a lovely day in which I felt very equal and very loved by my partner, who I hope felt the same.

I see 'marriage' as a long line of evolving traditions which legally (or emotionally) bind people together and felt entirely happy recreating them in the way I saw fit. I like being married as we refer to ourselves as this married unit, but I expect this is the same for those in a partnership.

If a man didn't want to marry me, I would not have children with them, as it is a very active rejection of the sharing of material goods and often (IMO) emotional commitment by some men who I have seen dangling the promise of marriage over women in a very undesirable way. I am not sure the same is true for women who are not married though.

The only thing I do disagree with legally is that I would prefer the partners in marriage to be able to retain their previous goods (e.g. houses etc) on marriage, so if they divorced, they would retain them. I would not claim my husband's previous properties if we divorced as they are not jointly aquired or paid for.

I've been living with DP for about 6 years now. I have never been married, and do not intend to marry. The house is in my name, my estate would go to my family.
I have just never seen the point of marriage - but there again I don't have children, I think the legal side would make me think again if I did.

i care thats why im not a wife
i care alot actually.i care not to be a wife i amke that active choice.so its not as simple as just words

Being a 'wife'/husband or a civil partner is only different to being a cohabiting partner in the legal sense of the word. Not to downplay the legal sense at all, it is very important, but, really, who gives a f* about what they are called?

JosieRosie, Why would anybody feel any differently about a (UK) civil partnership and civil marriage? .

As this is supposed to be the feminist section of MN, can I try to bring it back to feminism for a moment?

A woman in a civil partnership would be treated the same legally and financially as one in a marriage.

I genuinely fail to see what the difference would be for a woman in a long-term cohabiting relationship. What actual difference would it be for her to be civilly-partnered or married? Legally, they are the same.
There would be no difference there. In fact, it might be worse for women because AFAIK adultery is not accepted as a reason to dissolve (divorce) from the relationship.
Hardly a step forward for feminism, then. 'Yeah we know your civil partner sleeps around, but still, you'll just have to put up and shut up'. At least with marriage, women can use adultery as a valid excuse for divorcing.

Also, I seriously think you need to understand that it is not the legal status of a couple's relationship that gives it meaning. Being a 'partner', 'civil partner' or 'wife' doesn't really matter: it is the quality of the relationship that matters.

I really don't think you understand this. It really, really should be obvious.

You seem to be clambering for a change in the law to provide an option that already exists for you.

do get NOK decision recorded formally,with gp. and if there are ongoing health appts etc write to the hospital too. and the NOK card is useful

it is commonly held belief (esp on mn) that the cohabitee/partner can not be NOK

any adult with capacity can be NOK