Marriage - yay or nay?

How can you say that marriage is not for you when you're living with somebody in a long-term relationship and have no objection to effectively being married, anyway, for you do want a civil partnership that is identical to marriage in all respects ?

If you want to live with somebody in a long-term relationship in a civil partnership you want to be married. It's as simple as that.

I do not this as being the same as solidgoldbrass anti-marriage stance at all. Her reasoning is sound.
She says here (and that is all I can go on) that she doesn't want any form of live-in relationship. Nor does she appear to want a civil partnership, either.

Well for a person who wants to live separately from a lover/partner that makes perfect sense to me. I can understand the anti-marriage view.

But your view makes absolutely no sense to me- you want to live in a long-term cohabiting relationship, plus you want something that will make you effectively married i.e. civil partnership but are against marriage?

I am married, have been for 20 years. I've been a feminist for much longer.

Historically, yes, marriage has been a means of controlling women, but then so have nearly all other legal institutions: it isn't now, and it can be what you as a couple make of it. I wanted us both to have the legal protection that being each other's next of kin gives us. You can almost replicate that if you're not married (with wills, lasting powers of attorney, life insurance written in trust for each other etc), but it's more hassle, and if you're lucky enough to end up owning enough assets to pay inheritance tax, you don't get the tax break if you're not married (we are not rich but we do have a London house and wouldn't want the survivor of the two of us to have to sell it to pay the tax!).

There was also an element of wanting to make a public declaration of our commitment to each other in front of our close friends and family. I didn't take on any of the "traditional" trappings of marriage (except that I do wear a ring, but so does DH), I kept my own name for all purposes, and these days I'm the main earner.

Civil partnership is called that and not marriage because they'd never have got the legislation through the House of Lords if they'd called it marriage, by the way. There's no great significance in the choice of terminology.

Yes instruct a solicitor re:wills,finances,property if unmarried.it costs but is worth doing

I think marriage is great. For other people. Not something I would ever do. But then living in a couple=relationship is not something I would ever do, either.

I can understand your viewpoint OP and think it's fair enough. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to do something because the weight of its cultural baggage is too damn much. Though I would advise you and your DP to sort things out legally so that if one of you dies, the other is protected financially and the custody of any DC you have is arranged for.

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

nay