Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

This is my pledge to Yorkiegirl ....

202 replies

moaningpaper · 28/10/2006 15:02

This is my pledge to Yorkiegirl .... (well to my family really)

I WILL swallow my horror at the whole wife thing and get married in the next 12 months so that my family has more legal protection.

Who wants to join me?

OP posts:
SenoraPostrophe · 30/10/2006 11:31

@ fennel and capuccino.

I do agree that comparisons of marrieds v cohabitees can be misleading. but if it helps I'm 31 and have done less housework since we got married.

SenoraPostrophe · 30/10/2006 11:31

fennel - doesn't the tendency for old roles to resurface happen in some families on the birth of a child too though?

Cappuccino · 30/10/2006 11:34

I think 'fewer feminists are married than non-feminists' is a bit of a dodgy statement

how do you define 'feminist'? There is a whole generation of women, sadly, who won't associate themselves with the word 'feminist' because of its 1970s connotations. Many of them young, very academically bright and successful, women

who may or may not be married

and if it is the case that the non-feminists really are married, maybe that's why they're doing the housework, not because some weird psycho-chemical reaction took place as they pulled on their wedding dress...

fennel · 30/10/2006 11:35

Birth of a child is the biggest factor leading to more traditional gender roles for both married and cohabiting couples. I'm not sure if there's a difference between the two groups on that.

fortyplus · 30/10/2006 11:44

My dh ended up doing loads more housework soon after we got married - I gave birth and was permanently knackered!

I guess we're all individuals - I wonder how representative MNers are of the population as a whole?

fennel · 30/10/2006 11:49

I didn't say that everyone who gets married is not a feminist.

There is a certain strand of feminism, especially popular in the 70's, where women explicitly call themselves feminist, and many of these women have an aversion to getting married. For the sort of reasons people have posted earlier. So on average there will be relatively more cohabiting feminists than married feminists, just as more people with a strong religious affiliation will be married. (and yes I know there are feminist christians etc too).

Dottydot · 30/10/2006 14:37

MP - I get that difference if you get married in a Church - but what about civil ceremonies at Register offices - it's just the same. I know what you're saying re: the 'meaning' of marriage, but it doesn't have to be like that - it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Sue - to the children we say we're married, because they saw our wedding day as the day we got married as a family - so in their eyes we're all married! To grown ups we say we had our civil ceremony - but would describe ourselves still as 'partners' - definitely not wife and wife!

lemonAIIEEE · 30/10/2006 14:44

Dotty -- you don't officially have to have a ceremony at all for a civil partnership, I think. You can just turn up and sign the relevant form with no ceremony whatsoever, which isn't the case for a civil marriage. I strongly suspect (on the basis of no empirical evidence whatsoever, I admit) that the overwhelming majority of civil partnerships do involve a ceremony/vows, but AFAIK it's not technically required.

Dottydot · 30/10/2006 14:49

No - you have to book it in advance - do the notices 15 days beforehand, have two witnesses and say all the right words and sign the register - just like a register office wedding.

Dottydot · 30/10/2006 14:51

I think it was 15 days anyway - whatever is normally is - we did it about 5 months beforehand. The notices go up in the town hall along with all the heterosexual civil ceremony notices. So yes, it's just the same...

lemonAIIEEE · 30/10/2006 15:38

The GRO says that "The Civil Partnership Act does not provide for a ceremony." but that you can have one (i.e. not a requirement) -- you do have the same notice period, etc., and you do need witnesses, but they are for witnessing the signing of the document and not for the ceremony itself. Other government sites agree that a civil partnership is formed when the second civil partner signs the relevant document, in contrast to a civil marriage which is formed when the couple exchange spoken words.

(I initially thought you had to have a ceremony, too, because everyone I know who's had a civil partnership has had one, just the same as for a civil marriage ceremony. But apparently you don't actually have to so long as you give notice, have two witnesses and sign the document).

StrawberryFULLMoonOWOWOWWWWWWW · 30/10/2006 15:48

sorry have totally missed this and havent time to read full thread..what is it about couples being married?..what are the beneifts?..sorry to sound thick

Dottydot · 30/10/2006 15:59

Lemonaid - you might be right, but this is what I thought:

"In a civil ceremony, there are certain statutory words which must be said to make your marriage legal. In addition to these, you may be allowed to use your own choice of vows, but check with your registrar first."
(taken from one of the websites about civil partnerships).

You say the legally binding words to form the contract, but can add other stuff as well.

Anyway, I think the point is that you can make a civil ceremony as long or short as you want, depending on the type of occasion etc.!

drosophila · 30/10/2006 16:08

It's largly about the next of kin issue as I see it.

Can I ask if as a married person you view co
-habitees as less committed? What else do you think about people who don't get married who have kids but live together for many years.

Dottydot · 30/10/2006 16:12

I don't think co-habiting people are automatically or necessarily less committed at all - each relationship is different. But they're potentially more vulnerable if something awful happens to one of them.

lemonAIIEEE · 30/10/2006 16:25

I don't see them as less committed at all.

I think what it's largely about depends on your circumstances. If you have small children then I think the widowed parent's benefit is something really important and something the absence of which would make a real material difference to your life if an unmarried partner died; actually, if I weren't married then that would probably be enough to make me go and do it. In other circumstances next of kin and inheritance tax are more important (those are what motivated FIL and his partner to get married last year, I think - I could entirely see my SILs deliberately excluding FIL's DP from any decisions about him if he were seriously ill in hospital).

StrawberryFULLMoonOWOWOWWWWWWW · 30/10/2006 16:40

so...we;'re not married and dont have the urge to be..so if something were to happen to one of us, what diff would being married make to us?

fennel · 30/10/2006 16:43

The thing about the next of kin is, it's not the case legally that only a spouse or a parent can be next of kin. it's really up to the hospital or the doctor, and the NHS has recently issued guidelines to suggest that they do recognise cohabitees. And you can fill out a little card and carry it around which allows you to nominate your next of kin. it's on that website I linked to earlier.

So even though the next of kin thing is a bit of a worry, concerning whether the hospital would accept this in practice, they are definitely supposed to, and it seems really incredibly annoying to have to get married to get something which legally you do not have to be married to get.

fennel · 30/10/2006 16:46

I do feel, very strongly, that all adults, whether married, single, cohabiting or whatever should be able to nominate a person to be their next of kin in case of emergency. Many of us don't have particularly great relationships with our parents, if I didn't have a partner I would nominate my sister, or a friend, or more or less anyone in the world rather than my parents to make decisions for me. There's no real reason why any adult even if NOT MARRIED should be stuck with their parents as their next of kin as if they are still a child until married. for me that's not about rights for cohabitees it's about a basic right for all adults to be allowed to make their own choices about who represents them.

fennel · 30/10/2006 16:47

off on a bit of a rant there

zephyrHellcat · 30/10/2006 16:51

Strawberry, have a look here at Yorkie's original post... that's what started it all off

NAB3 · 30/10/2006 16:52

I disagree with gay people being allowed to have a civil partnership and people calling it them getting married. It isn't. I don't have a problem with gay people btw.

If getting married is just a piece of paper why don't those people against it do it?

I married my husband because I love him and want to be with him forever. I also wanted to have children with him and would not have done that without being married. I was pleased to take his name, and didn't even conside not doing, it was beside the point that I didn't like my maiden name (nor would I have any emotional attachment to it now if I wasn't married) and I am proud to call myself Mrs B. Just how I feel about things.

lemonAIIEEE · 30/10/2006 16:53

Very good point, fennel.

motherinferior · 30/10/2006 16:55

We never said it was just a piece of paper: precisely the opposite.

motherinferior · 30/10/2006 16:55

We never said it was just a piece of paper: precisely the opposite.