Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

But why WOULD you get married? Its just a bit of paper, surely?

313 replies

fillyjonk · 04/09/2007 19:48

Why does a day out in a frou frou frock and a bit of paper mean so much to people?

For me what is important is the
relationship, which is what you work at day to day.

I know there are some legal/financial implications to not getting married, though some of these CAN be overcome, and others are overplayed. But anyway, I am not getting the impression that they are a big deal for most people.

Am curious here, no criticism meant...

OP posts:
aloha · 04/09/2007 20:24

I do think 'partner' is hideous, but that's just because I think of a firm of accountants. I also accept that there is no other remotely adult term.

morningpaper · 04/09/2007 20:25

must finish washing up

NomDePlumeIsOffWorkToday · 04/09/2007 20:25

As I said earlier, the tone of your OP/title is aggressive. I cannot see how you are surprised that some posters have taken mild offence....

LittleBella · 04/09/2007 20:26

But biblical marriage didn't last that long either, did it? (Although it's being re-introduced by some of the more rabid parts of the monotheistic faiths by the looks of it.)

The point about marriage, is that each society defines and evolves it for its own needs. Which is why our society happens to have invented civil partnership, because of the cultural, religious, social resonances of what used to be considered a normal marriage. We're in an interesting state of flux, which is why marriage is too.

madamez · 04/09/2007 20:26

Perfectly reasonable to want to get married because you want to make as public a commitment as possible to the one you love (and no reason AT ALL to deny this to people who are not heterosexual or, indeed, people who want a 'marriage' that's a menage a trois or a group or whatever).
Equally, perfectly reasonable to refuse to marry because (for a woman anyway) to marry is still giving up the right to say no to sex. Also, some people feel (and there seems to be some evidence to bear this out) that when you actually get married, some heterosexual men start expecting wives to behave like, well, wives, no matter how equal and reasonable the partnership was beforehand.

Kewcumber · 04/09/2007 20:26

I'm not married and am single so its really only of philosphical interest to me at the moment. But how do you get the rights of a marriage without being marriage? How do you prove that your partner is genuinely your partner not just someone you are pretending with in order to reduce your inheritance tax bill or give a friend a share of your pension?

A civil partnership is surely a registry office wedding, no need for the trappings if you don't want them. How would you differentiate a registry office wedding from a civil partnership? Would you just tack on the end of the civil partnership "but we're not actually married"?

aloha · 04/09/2007 20:27

Of course it doesn't mean you give up the legal right not to have sex!

aloha · 04/09/2007 20:27

Far from it!

NomDePlumeIsOffWorkToday · 04/09/2007 20:28

"Equally, perfectly reasonable to refuse to marry because (for a woman anyway) to marry is still giving up the right to say no to sex. "

I thought the law had changed and now husbands could be prosecuted/charged for raping their wife ?

Blandmum · 04/09/2007 20:29

I'm sure that law was changed

madamez · 04/09/2007 20:29

Aloha: I like the word 'spouse' and advocate its use as it's non-gender-specific and doesn't actually absolutely mean 'legally-wedded-to'. SO it's quite a good word to use to indicate 'person who one lives with, sometimes has sex with, and feels committed to rather than person with whom one shares an office or a company name'.

fillyjonk · 04/09/2007 20:29

no what is interesting me is the idea that marriage per se is somehow changing people's relationships.

That is suprising to me

It is not meant to be aggressive, I am sorry if it came across that way but I AM curious here.

OP posts:
aloha · 04/09/2007 20:29

People are insanely ill-informed about marriage. They think it is compulsory to, say, wear a big dress, or promise to obey, or mention God or all sorts of stuff.

littlelapin · 04/09/2007 20:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

fillyjonk · 04/09/2007 20:30

yes they can be NDP

which is why i say until recently

specifically 1989, R v R

OP posts:
madamez · 04/09/2007 20:30

It's my understanding that a man can only be prosecuted for raping his wife if they are in the process of divorcing and not living together. But I do concede that the law might have changed again - I'm not a lawyer.

aloha · 04/09/2007 20:31

Yup, if you don't want to get or be married, that's fine (as long as it is really what you want), but don't pretend it is meaningless. If it was meaningless, everyone would do it!

aloha · 04/09/2007 20:31

No, that's not the case at all Madamez.

Blandmum · 04/09/2007 20:32

yes, I didn't promise to obey. I wasn't given away either. neither did I change my name.

We wanted to make a formal, life long, comittment to each other in front of family and friends.

Simple as that , really

Cammelia · 04/09/2007 20:33

madamez you are wrong, there is now such a crime as spousal rape

Roseylea · 04/09/2007 20:33

I took these words from the CofE wedding service; dh and I said them to each other 10 years ago and they have held us together through all the highs, lows, travelling, career-building, babies, deaths and general minutae of everyday life together:

"I, Sarah, take you, John,
to be my husband,
to have and to hold
from this day forward;
for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
till death us do part,
according to God's holy law;
In the presence of God I make this vow"

With my body I honour you, all that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you, within the love of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

To me that really is the heart of it; it's about deep ,abiding trust and looking after each other, come what may. I'm not daft; I know that not all marriages do stay together "till death do us part", but I believe that if you've made a solemn vow in public like that and genuiunely meant to do your utmost to live out the words of the vows, you can't have a better foundation for a life together.

But of course I would say that, (I'm hoping to train as a vicar).

aloha · 04/09/2007 20:33

Yes, you can walk out of the register office in your jeans and carry on being Ms X instead of Mrs Y, never call your husband your husband, never even tell anyone, if you want.

Blandmum · 04/09/2007 20:33

a quick google shows that the law was changed in the UK on the 23rd Oct 1991.

So you are wrong mademz

Cammelia · 04/09/2007 20:34

and so the word wife carries a feeling of contempt now?

Ridiculous

HorseyWoman · 04/09/2007 20:34

It's a huge commitment to each other. Assuming one doesn't have children at the point of marriage, it's a huge commitment to each other in the witness of God. Vows shared on our wedding day were important values we both continue to share and live by. Frou frou frock or private marriage with 2 witnesses, I am someone who sees marriage as important. It's not necessarily important to everyone to the same degree, and nor would I expect it to be, but it is to me.