Marriage - yay or nay?

Scottishmummy I think you are making a valid point. From reading what you have posted I guess that where a patient were married there would be an automatic assumption that the spouse was next of kin unless there was evidence to the contrary.

The issue arises for non-married couples especially where there is long running dispute with the outlaws. In this situation there is a risk of unseemly squabbles of the patient's sick bed. It is very easy to imagine the scenario of stressed out partner and bonkers parents she never looked after him, I'm his mother.....

Everyone means to tie up all the loose ends but there is always something better to do and anyway we are all the living proof that death happens to other people.

just for the record marriage doesnt=sort out nok.anyone can be your nominated nok

in england nok, is not defined by law and can be any capeable adult.
in scotland nok is also not defined there is no legal definition of Next of Kin in scotland and it can be whoever a person appoints. Usual Practice was this would be deemed to be the closest relative (by blood or marriage) but it can in fact be anyone you choose. If there is any dubiety here it may be worth you nominating your next of kin in a written format if you wish. scotland did discuss whether cp would automatically be nok, but did not go down that route. in reality these days most trusts and gp acknowledged and aware nok not necessarily immediate family

common myth is that it is family only-this is not the case. you can nominate your next of kin, you must inform the NHS trust, GP etc.get it documented in notes this can be a cohabitee. all competent adult patients are asked to nominate their next of kin formally on admission to hospital. This is not simply a contact number but has potential significance, as the nominated person must be willing to best reflect what they believe would have been your wishes in the event of your incapacity or death. It is this person that staff would turn to for advice/guidance/help about your care if you were unable to respond yourself. For example, this might be because you are unconscious or unable to communicate due to illness or injury.

in the event of your death, it is your next of kin who would be consulted about bereavement issues such as making funeral arrangements, arranging a hospital post mortem or organ/tissue donation.

the role of next of kin is to express your likely wishes when you cannot.Your next of kin cannot consent or withhold consent for care on your behalf. But as your next of kin, their views on what you would have decided will be sought. These views will contribute to the decision that the clinicians caring for you (and who have a duty to act in your best interest) will make regarding your treatment and care. Thus, if you cannot make that decision for yourself, the final decision of care rests with the clinician in charge of your care.

If, in the case of an emergency, were nok not nominated nhs would seek advice from whoever we believe to be 'closest' to you and best able to reflect your wishes; for example, your current partner or closest relative.

Historically, the next of kin was the spouse or nearest relative of the patient, but Your next of kin does not need to be a blood relative or spouse; they can be your long-term partner, cohabitee or even a close friend.

there is a NOK card can be used if wished.your nok card.this will guide nhs staff and make your wishes explicit isn't a statutory document but does the trick, but do also let your gp know your nok nomination

'Receipts & Guarantees' ha ha. Ok I'm gonna find out how much it costs. But even if only we know, I'm afraid I'll be relinquishing some part of my liberty or identity or something. Yeah that sounds daft. Really like the idea of no rings.

DH filed our marriage certificate in with 'Receipts & Guarantees'

I've happily committed to my splendid partner for almost two decades without being married, and have always considered marriage a nasty, historically-retrograde institution, involving ceremonies freighted with patriarchal traditions etc. We are expecting our first child in the spring, and are reluctantly (reminded by what you say, TooMuch) planning to marry in jeans with two witnesses off the street and not tell anyone, at some point before the baby arrives - purely to sort out the legal/ parental/ next-of-kin stuff we've always intended to sort out with a solicitor, but never got around to!

I plan to stick the certificate (or whatever it is you get?) in the filing cabinet with the other dull-but-crucial documents, and forget all about it. However, I keep putting off thinking about it, because I really don't care for the idea of being married, and the notion of being a 'wife' (even if only me and my lovely partner know) makes me nauseous. No rings, no changes of name, no photos. Our long and happy relationship is what we consider worth celebrating, not the fact that we are getting married.

TooMuch, I agree with Gnome: you could get married with two witnesses off the street, not tell anyone and go on calling yourselves partners. Being legally married doesn't oblige you to call yourself a wife! And it does save a huge amount of heartache if you haven't put in all the legal protection you need and one of you dies - you truly can't rely on everyone being civilised after a death or a break-up.

Like Gnome I didn't at all like my parents' marriage, but mine and DH's is different.

TooMuch - getting married does sign you up to all the legal stuff and is in fact the cheapest way of doing things - it's a package deal.

You dont have to tell anyone. Just put the marriage certificate in a safe place.

I didnt like the look of my parents' marriage but I am not doing theirs, I'm doing mine (and DHs).

Another one who would not have children with a man unless I was married to him. Unless I was going to outearn my partner over the course of the relationship (no), I felt I owed it to my children to ensure that they (and me) were protected should the marriage fail or their father died. I would not put them in a vulnerable position and I won't bring them into the world unless I did what I could to give them security.

I don't have any misgivings about the patriarchy. I love the status 'wife' accords to me. I believe my husband to be more romantic than me about marriage. It makes a difference to him that he calls me his 'wife' and his children part of our family unit.

Sort of. I am, as I have said, quite pro marriage, but don't really like being called wife, loathe the title Mrs, get irritated when people assume I changed my name, so yes I do kind of know how you feel. I remember waking up in cold sweat panic attack sort of way when I dreamt I was having a huge white wedding and being announced as Mrs DHSurnname at the wedding, it felt as though I was drowning. However the wedding passed off uneventfully, I have remained Ms Ownsurname for all purposes so I was worrying unnecessarily.

unmarried we have seen solicitor about property,wills,finances
i have just never wanted to be married

Gnome I hate to admit it but you are so right. We have been meaning to do the solicitor thing for a while now but it just falls to the bottom of the priority list. I think the thing is that no one really wants to imagine the worst case scenario when they are happy. We both only want to imagine that everyone will behave in a civilised manner in the event of one of our deaths.
God perhaps it is easier to just do a brief marriage thing. I just feel a bit sick at the thought of it. I don't really want to be a wife. The connotations are too negative for me. Anyone else feel like this?

TooMuch - a solicitor can deal with the tedious bits but in your case has that actually happened? So many people mean to write all sorts of wise and sensible clauses into eminently sensible wills and agreements.

Tragically, they seldom actually get as far as the solicitor. Yet another good intention on the road to hell.

With a marriage all the tedious legal bits are dealt with in one fell swoop. There is no obligation to put an a white dress, eat stale cake or drink flat fizzy wine (though of course you could do this as a kind of ironic gesture).

While a couple can live happily together without all this boring legal stuff it's when they die, fall ill, fall out that all that boring stuff needs to have been cleared up when there is good will on both sides.

Quodlibet another thing for your list - a marriage makes clear your relationship to your family and friends. My family is quite scattered, we are not all in regular contact with each other. It is sometimes difficult to know who is a friend, who is a long term partner.

Hi, my partner and I have 2 kids but aren't married. My feeling is that I love him so much that I don't believe marriage can add anything more than a whole lot of expense and some legal shit that really isn't romantic and a solicitor can sort. My daughter has asked me if we are going to marry and I said no. I explained that people can love each other without being married. She knows we are in love and happy and that is all that matters.
My mother was married to a controlling and abusive man and she was a sahm so felt she couldn't leave him. As a teenager I resented her dependence on him and could sense that they were unhappy from a very early age. I do think the surname issue is a real conundrum though when you have kids.
Btw Partner/ bf been together nearly 20 years.

Well, it proves the intent, doesn't guarantee any success. What I was trying to say is that marriage is the lesser of the two commitments, if I wasn't committed enough to marry DH I would have worried that I wasn't committed enough to those children. I would not have been worried about not actually being married first, but wanted to be at least agreed that we would marry. I would also wonder if the children might worry as they got older that we were not as committed as parents that are married? I have to say that in my family and general circle of friends, practically everyone has married before having children, so it just seems like the normal thing to do for me.

This is all very helpful and thought-provoking.

WRT nailing down the details of the commitment, I reckon I could do with (from a feminist perspective) a list of the pragmatic advantages of marriage (aside from any romantic notions).

So far we've got:

• legally entitles you as next of kin
• protection of rights and assets of self and future children in the case of a separation
• tax advantages?
• Formally seen as changed status in eyes of society
• Ritual that can help you adjust to new status
• errrrm......

This I find very interesting WhoMoved:
if I hadn't been prepared to marry the person I wanted to have children with (or him to marry me) I would seriously have doubted my level of commitment to the future children of that relationship

I think I'm still wrestling with the idea that marriage 'proves' commitment to the future - there's something in me that bucks against the notion of 'I won't have children with you unless we're married first' - it seems such a hopelessly old-fashioned bind, but on the flip-side I can totally see how pragmatic it is. Or have I got it back to front?

I think even without children there are still good reasons for marrying. The big one is the 'next-of-kin' thing. Can someone be declared next of kin (I dont know so a genuine question)?

Even if a declaration of next of kin has been made there are still huge potential problems. If one or other of a non-married couple falls seriously ill or injured initial decisions may be made about care without reference to a long term partner.

Without a declaration of next of kin (assuming that is possible) decisions about things like organ donation will be made by parents not the long term partner.

Another thought to consider is that while someone is legally married to you, they cant be legally married to someone else!

While these thoughts may seem a bit gloomy it is in fact in extremis that the details of a commitment need to have been nailed down beforehand.

I'd quite like a wedding I always like a good excuse to get pissed with my mates but legally and long-term financially it would be a really bad idea for me. I'd lose my sole parental rights and DP would have a right to a share of my house if we split.

For most Mums marriage does offer good legal protection, though.

The name changing thing- I just DONT GET IT!

Fair enough at finding the whole 'traditional wedding' thing cringeworthy but it suits those that want it, however, there is no need to get married like that.

Why don't you look into whether the 'PACS' in France has validity in the UK (if people made the arrangement in France, that is?)

Even if the gay civil partnerships that we have are extended to heterosexuals, they will legally be identical to marriage, anyway, so pointless from a legal perspective. Might as well get married.
Sorry, if I seemed a bit off with you about this; but it did seem as if you were saying that civil partnerships were somehow trivial and didn't have the weight or gravitas of straight marriage. Believe me, they are as every bit as serious from a legal and financial viewpoint as marriage.
Besides which, having attended a few myself (damned sight more interesting than the usual marriages I have been to!), they are seen by both partners as being a lifetime commitment and celebrated in much the same way.
In fact, the first one I attended cost the guys a small fortune. Flowers, about 200 guests, marquee, fireworks, the bloody works! Hey, it's their money not mine! Everybody talked about the occasion as a 'marriage' and how excited they were about the 'wedding'.
Really, everybody thought the chaps were getting 'married' not 'civilly-partnered'. The guys didn't mind- having waiting ages to cement their relationship in the same way as heterosexual people, a few semantics did not bother them.

If marriage really does repulse you despite the reasonable efforts of people here to see it in a sensible light, either you've got to make your own legal arrangements or just accept that you and your partner can just end things with no obligation to the other partner (children are a separate issue).

There really is no other choice in the UK.

If my understanding is correct, Civil Partnerships outside of the UK are essentially temporary arrangements. I lived in the Netherlands for a while and there you could declare someone as your tax partner. As I recall this declaration was made year by year. It worked there but the Dutch are an essentially pragmatic people so I think that fitted with the national character .

I think these temporary civil partnerships are essentially business arrangements. This works fine until the essential nature of the relationship changes.

In my opinion where the two partners are wanting to make a long term commitment then it has to be made wholeheartedly and a 100% commitment. It needs to cover all eventualities. It needs to cover those times when the balance of economic power within the relationship changes. It needs to cover the times when the partnership is affected by ill health.

It doesnt matter what you call this commitment. You can marry in secret with just a couple of strangers off the street and still refer to each other as partners. The difference will be that you cant break the partnership without considerable difficulty and expense but that just reflects the depth of the commitment.

The history of marriage is fascinating. In the UK many of the rituals do in fact reflect the essential business nature of a marriage:

• the veil put back so that bride and groom know who they are marrying and there are no last minute substitutions
• the taking and breaking of hands so that unwilling partners can flee
• the unlocked door to allow unwilling partners to leave
• the bridesmaids to ensure that the wedding takes place
• the best man to ensure that the dowry is paid

Despite my interest in the history, I am married in the present.

Interesting post Quodlibet - I grew up determined to be financially dependent, have a career, keep my own name, etc, etc, I never wanted a wedding to be the pinnacle of all my aspirations as many of my school friends wanted to. I remember a few years ago a colleague telling me how proud she was to be addressed as Mrs DHfirstname DHsurname now she was married and I didn't get it at all, still don't. As for the thought of a big white wedding, no way! But I never felt that I didn't want to be married, just that I didn't want it to be the only thing I aspired to, the thing that defined me (hence no Mrs here). I agree with Tadlow that children are the bigger commitment, so if I hadn't been prepared to marry the person I wanted to have children with (or him to marry me) I would seriously have doubted my level of commitment to the future children of that relationship. Marriage doesn't have to change the person you are, it just adds another layer to your life.

Sorry to be pedantic, JosieRosie, but I think you are after some kind of 'PACS' agreement -which is sort of fair enough, but don't think that a 'civil partnership' in the UK is some kind of legal and financial 'marriage-lite', because the implications of being in a CP and leaving a CP are the same as marriage.

Put bluntly, a civil partner has as much right to fleece a spouse they no longer want as a 'married' partner. Ain't equality grand?

My understanding is that in other countries a kind of 'marriage-lite' exists.
I think it is called 'PACS' in France.
However, in the UK, civil partnerships are exactly the same as marriage for straight people- think about it. In the age of (proper and right) equality for gay people, how can they not be allowed the same legal and financial rights of marriage?

So, yeah, in the UK-where I presume JosieRosie- is from, frankly, civil partnership and marriage are the same.

Anybody thinking that civil partnerships are some kind of 'marriage-lite' in the UK needs to have their eyes opened to this fact.

I did not know about adultery aspect being different- can't see this being liberating or better though, so a woman can't 'dissolve' a civil partnership on the grounds of him being an adulterous pig? Not sure if this is a forward step for feminism myself!
Perhaps 'unreasonable behaviour' would cover it, though.

Being grim and realistic, Quodlibet, it's having children that's the trap. Married or unmarried, if you're childless you can get out of a bad relationship and walk away. If you're married and the higher earner, it might cost you something financially to leave, and there's more paperwork involved, but there is anyway if there are things in your joint names.

Changing what happens at the wedding isn't hard unless you have relatives who want to stick their oar in - none of it's required, it's all just convention. I made a speech at my wedding and had a best woman (who also made a speech) rather than a bridesmaid. No-one "gave me away" because I was no-one's to give. And I totally agree that rituals to mark major rites of passage are very important. But then I would agree with you on that - I am married, after all!

This is a really interesting thread JosieRosie, thanks for starting it (and keeping the discussion going!)

I find myself asking a similar set of questions to you at the moment. DP and I are planning to have children in the near future. Despite being a life-long feminist, and despite always feeling that marriage wasn't in the slightest bit of importance to me, (there is no part of me that harbours any kind of bride fantasy) in the past couple of years and particularly as we get closer to taking the step of starting a family, I feel very much drawn to the idea of marriage in a way that I'm finding difficult to unpick. The advice others have given on this thread - to be really careful before starting a family without the security that marriage provides - is helping me to rationalise this a little bit, although there's a part of my brain that I don't understand going 'but then does that give marriage the function of some sort of trap or cage that it's harder to escape from?' Does anyone understand that thought and can anyone help me unpick it?

Personally, I like the idea of formalising our planned commitment to each other, and of doing this in front of and with the people in our lives who are close to us and who will help support our life together in different ways. I feel like I'd have to start from scratch with working out how I'd like that ceremony to work and would definitely need to dispense with all the traditional trimmings that for me are overhangs of marriage's patriarchal past. There's absolutely no way in the world I'd give up my name or allow my wedding to be a series of men giving speeches.

But I do think that as I've got older I've realised that there's something important and transformative about the rituals in life which give our lives shape and definition and which help us make transitions effectively (eg consciously committing to a shared future). I feel like some sort of public ritual would be a positive, affirmative thing for us, if we can find a way to 'author' what marriage means to us and dispense with what it has historically meant - which I optimistically hope should be possible.