for thinking marriage is special?

[WashwithCare]

I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons, or that it shouldn't be permissble to end a marriage - sometimes marriages fail...

But to my mind, marriage confers a special status on a relationship with a loved one whom you have chosen to consciously make a public commitment. It doesn't matter how long you cohabit, you didn't do that - you're not married.

I have had a number of long term bfs, some of whom I lived with. I didn't marry them for good reasons. I would hate the thought that I would be legally bound to them in ways I did not agree to simply by living with them.

I don't believe cohabitees should gain automatic rights, however long they live together. After all, there is a simple process and legal framework already in place if you wish to confer this on another person - you can marry them! Do others agree?

To answer my own post

We did the whole big white wedding thing... little rural white washed church... Scottish Baronial house on the loch edge... huge dress.. roses and thistles - all organised from yes to I do in 6 weeks flat...

To my mind, it was different... Reptiliean love... well if you want to call it that... it was just a case of feeling that my depth of committment here was different - hugely deeper...

I have a good understanding of family law, and I had always balked at entering into those committments with other men I had dated, and then I met DH, and I literally felt weak at the knees, and every objection that I had felt before fell to the wayside...

The notion that another man could acqurie the rights I conferred upon the man I have elected to join with completely, simply my comign to stay, utterly horrifies me.

Marriage is different. QED

perhaps i should get my ex-boyfreind to pay for it ?

drloves - let me pay darling - after all I am filthy rich after all? ;-)

anyfucker -you should really change your name to cheekyfucker lol

nah thanks for the offer wash , but daddy is getting this one - ;-)

This is all now so implausible that if you have not already turned it into a novel, I am going to.

The two swindled children will wear baker boy caps and call the op Guvnor, and bravely sweep chimneys to avoid life on the streets, but still have the goodness of heart to give their former father figure a sweep's lucky handshake at the wedding.

yes, pithy, it seems to be all around

2rebecca

i have been 'living with someone until something better comes along' 20 years now

dp and i did not want a shotgun wedding and both came from shit marriages broken homes

we thought we would wait until we had had all our dc so that none of them could question why we did not marry before them iyswim.

we are still together - 20 yrs on guess nothing better came along

i think most people marry for the giftsbash

milly !

I reckon it's either a full moon or snow fever, MN is very strange tonight.

notanotter - thats a good point . i think not everyone who marries understands exactly what it means.And a lot of people who live together assume they will be treated the same as a married couple in the eyes of the law.
people get married for different reasons i suppose.

lol pithy

Ignoring "the shadow" of previous threads and taking the OP's question at face value, yes, I broadly agree.

However, I disagree that living with a partner is like living with your dog (although at least the dog does what I tell it).

As far as the law is concerned the real issue is that the commitment of cohabitees varies enormously. Some are undoubtedly as committed as married people; others are definitely not (I've lived with bf's out of convenience whilst knowing I would be unlikely to end up with them- I would have been horrified to have legal obligations attached to it). By confering automatic rights to cohabitees, the law cannot pick and choose between these people easily. Therefore it does not make sense to treat cohabitees in the same way as married couples.

Re. forced marriage, that is against the law as well, so whilst I sort of take the point, it's not relevant to a discussion on legal rights.

SOme people simply have an ethical objection to marriage, which was after all basically a license to rape up until about 20 years ago - by getting married, a woman lost the right to refuse her husband sex. That's something that put a lot of women off the idea.

true SGB , but that`s been sorted out (legally at least).

FWIW NotAnOtter, I agree with you. I think a lot of people, who can afford it, do get married for the presents and the bash. Which leaves a lot of people who can't afford it thinking that they won't marry until they can, which is such a shame.

I suppose there is an argument that if both parties agree not to marry, despite there being children, then there is possibly a more secure relationship there than many who do marry, but for the wrong reasons. (I sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm trying not to, I'm just thinking out loud.)

Where one party wants to marry and one doesn't, that's when alarm bells should ring I think. They would for me anyway.

Given the unpleasant associations that SGB pointed out (which I had never thought of, I must admit) what do people think about "marriage" as such being reserved for church weddings and having "civil partnerships" at registry offices, thereby giving people the choice? What is the most important thing for people? Declaring undying love for as long as ye both shall live, or the legal status? Would many people opt for the latter over the former do you think? From my point of view, the church wedding thing was all very nice and traditional, but it's terribly unrealistic in this day and age when you're talking about 50 or 60 years together!

gaelicsheep , does that mean agnostics or atheists couldnt get married?. nothing wrong with church weddings, but nothing wrong with regrestry office, half way up a hill/hotel /castle /dingy in the middle of the ocean weddings either . people should have choice on how to do it.

Weeell, dunno really. Not thought it through. I'm just wondering out loud what are the essentials of a marriage in religious terms as opposed to in legal terms, which you could equally well term a civil partnership? I suppose I'm thinking that if you are an agnostic or an atheist, what exactly is the purpose of getting married other than the legal practicalities? If both arrangements were to be equal in the eyes of the law (and the Tories) which would people choose?

Gaelic Sheep- The issue here is that the law re married couples assumes a permanancy of relationship which is why you are treated as "one person" in (e.g.) inheritance and CG tax, why you are allowed to give consent for the other's medical treatment in emergencies etc.

If you're suggesting a civil partnership which confers the same legal status as marriage without having to commit to maintaining that relationship then aren't we getting into the realm of "rights without responsibilities?"

I'm not sure what the ethical objections to marriage are nowadays really so I think doing all this for a few people who dont want to say "till death do us part" would just be a waste of parliamentary time

Now you see, that makes sense and explains why I shouldn't be here posting my vague half-awake ramblings at 12:30 in the morning! I was getting myself in a mental jumble trying to work out exactly why I did get married in the first place!

Forgive my ignorance, but does that mean that civil partnerships for same sex couples don't make that assumption?

dunno gaelic , i suppose that would depend on the couple and what they needed in their relationship. ] heres a thought ..... can you have a civil partnership with one person ,and be married to another at the same time? does anyone know?

anyone remember that mad poly-troll?
mabey she could have a civil partnership with her bro-in law and make it official!