Marriage - yay or nay?

[JosieRosie]

This old chestnut again! DP and I have been together for 6 and a half years. I have many problems with marriage - patriarchal history, the wisdom and plausibility of promising to be together forever, the fact that many people still view a wife as a husband's 'property', wife legally a husband's sex slave until a mere 20 years ago. The traditional wedding ceremony (engagement ring, white dress, giving away the bride) sends me into a right frothy but I know all those things are optional these days!

Anyway, I have always been staunchly against marriage, but recently 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'. I'm not religious and not remotely interested in a big celebrity-type 'bash', and we're not close to our families, and are not planning any children, so I'm not sure what it is exactly that I'm finding attractive about the idea of marriage but something has got me thinking!

Please share your feeling and experiences, positive or negative, about marriage from a feminist point of view
Thanks

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.

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

'Can still celebrate anniversaries and significant dates if unmarried'
Indeed - we always make a fuss of our anniversary (first date), any excuse for a celebration

Very good point about wills. We are completely independent financially and we don't own a property but it's definitely something to think about for the future.

solidgoldbrass, just wondering why you feel so strongly that marriage is not for you? I understand this is a personal question and you may not feel comfortable answering, which is fine, but it's so rarely that I meet someone who feels the same way, I'm intrigued!

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.

wamster, I don't understand why you're so personally offended by my views. I started this thread to encourage debate and to hear other people's point of view, not to be verbally slapped down by someone who feels they know better than I do. So please leave it now.

Tadlow, thanks for your thoughts. Did you have any surprised/negative comments about keeping your name? Out of all the women I have ever known, only 3 have kept their own name in some form. It seems that swapping your name for your husband's is still very much the norm!

I think it is worth bearing in mind here that civil partnerships would be just as trapping (or untrapping) of women as marriage is.

Civil partnerships would still require a 'divorce' in order to get dissolve them.

A woman in an abusive civil partnership would still be subject to the same rules by the system as a married woman in an abusive relationship.

I think that the only difference is the name.

JosieRosie, if you read between the lines, people here are effectively saying that there is no difference between civil partnerships and marriage, it is just that they are being more polite and diplomatic about disagreeing with you.

And I think the way you dropped the civil partnerships bombshell half the way through the thread and not at the beginning is a trifle off.

JosieRosie, I haven't had many negative comments, though I have had the odd surprised one (mainly from older relatives). MIL hyphenates our names if she ever writes to me (she knows perfectly well that that isn't actually what I've done, but she can't quite get her head round my not having changed at all, and she's elderly so I'm not about to make a big thing of it).

Same here, kept my own name for all purposes (been married 11 years). Don't get many comments, just find that people constantly assume I changed it, I didn't make much of a thing about it at the start and wish I had told more people now as every year I get masses of birthday cards addressed to Mrs DHsurname despite me still using my own surname on email, FB, everything really, but feel a bit petty pointing it out after all these years. MIL knows perfectly well though and still does it, grrr.

I know quite a few married women who have hyphenated, some of their DHs have also hyphenated, some haven't, some have given their DCs the hyphenated name, some have given the DH surname, anything goes these days, but the default seems to be very much that the woman changes her name still.

'the default seems to be very much that the woman changes her name still'

Yes it does, doesn't it, which I can't help finding really sad I don't understand why you would change your name, although I once heard a woman say that she would rather have her husband's name than her father's name, because she had a horrible relationship with her father and would rather have the name of a man she loved. I still thinks it sends a worrying message though, as if you have left your old identity behind completely.

DH and I seriously thought about both changing our names to something else entirely, because I didn't want to change to his for feminist reasons and I actually don't particularly like mine as no-one can spell it, but we decided it was just too complicated to do (and would have upset lots of his relations).

I find it sad too, also the fact that most married women still use Mrs but it is very hard to discuss it in RL without causing offence. I do know one man who took his wife's surname on marriage, which is very unusual.

So do I, WhoKnows - she was one of three sisters and was attached to her name and didn't want to see it die out. He didn't have strong feelings about his, so he changed.

Agree it's hard to discuss in real life. People don't like it when you seem to be criticising their choices. Though I expressed sorrow when one friend decided, under pressure, to change her name on marriage, and now that she's going through a messy divorce she remembered that conversation and told me I'd been right. Not much consolation in the circumstances!

The one I know had one of those surnames you would have been teased mercilessly for at school so he was probably just desperate to get rid of it!

JosieRosie I'm another been married for 20 years. One of the things that I think that being married gives us is a time-line, we can say that from X date we have been committed 100% to each other and have the piece of paper to prove it. I feel that is different from a rather more vague date (I couldnt tell you the date when we first dated or even the date when we first started living together).

The 'next-of-kin' issue is an important one. In the event of you or your partner being taken seriously ill you are not 'next-of-kin' to each other. Decisions could be made, information given but you are totally excluded.

You can spend as little or as much as you like on a wedding ceremony. At the end of the day it's the quality of the commitment that counts more than the quality of the cake.

'DH and I seriously thought about both changing our names to something else entirely'

See, I really like this idea actually, because it's equal - it's something you both do. I hate my last name so this sounds quite appealing! Although at work, people would probably think your new name was his name, which would be annoying Agree it would probably be a nightmare to organise too...

Gnome, congratulations on your 20 years of marriage! I understand what you say about the 'timeline' of the relationship - this is actually another thing I don't like about marriage! People tend to ask how long you have been married, not how long you have been together and I wouldn't want to scrub out the last 6 and a half years. We've had some wonderful times and some bloody awful times but it's our shared history. We celebrate our first date anniversary every year and it means as much to us as a wedding anniversary would. It's really interesting hearing different people's ideas about what's important to them!

If you get married in a register office, the registrar will ask you which name you which to be known by in future; there is absolutely no legal requirement to change your name. I agree that the default option is that women still do- but there is no requirement to do so. Women do get the choice. The registrar won't, in the nicest possible way, care either way.
There are basic rules that must be followed when having a register office wedding-which as far as I can see is the 'least fuss' option- you must give notice, have an interview with the registrar to determine whether you are doing it of your own free will. This is absolutely required and there is a timeline of a few weeks to actually have the wedding.
I think it costs £30 each to give notice and £43.50 to actually get married.

Two witnesses must be present. There is no requirement to be 'given away', guests, food, a requirement of dress or even rings.
Nice as these things can be-and a lot of people understandably want a 'fuss'-there is no requirement for them.

Truly, it can be a very straightforward business.

We had a fairly low key wedding, civil ceremony, as little fuss as possible etc. It was very nice. I just like the feeling of knowing we have made the commitment, I would not have wanted to have bought a house with DH or had children before marriage (we both come from fairly conventional families where pretty well everyone has married before having children etc so it seemed normal to us). I also like the fact that legally it makes things a lot simpler, next of kin, inheritance, etc. I do not feel it in any way goes against my feminist principles, I was not given away, didn't change name, we still have separate bank accounts etc. In response to the how long have you been married question I would tend to say 11 year but were together for 3 before that.

I know that you dislike the idea of marriage (don't hold your breath to have a civil partnership. I know I've kept on about this but I can't seem them coming in for heterosexuals and I'm being genuine about this. In basic terms, civil partnerships are no different to civil marriages-so why have a new system?), but, really for a hundred quid or so, it is worth it if people are in it for life.

Most people- myself included- do not judge a couple's relationship on whether they are married or not. I like to think people are smarter than that. Being married is no guarantee of happiness nor does being unmarried mean a couple are unhappy and that is very true, but seeing it as a legal arrangement for those who are already committed can really be useful in blowing the cobwebs away about the issue.

Religion and all the rest of it are optional extras.

I don't know what makes you so sure of yourself with regards to civil partnerships, wamster. As it happens, I live in a country that allows heterosexual (and homosexual) civil partnerships and intend to take advantage of this civil status as soon as we sort out the paperwork.

Civil partnership makes sense to us as we don't have children, and we have very different financial statuses, so marriage would be unnecessarily binding to us at the moment (we haven't ruled it out for the future). Civil partnership allows us to have some of the benefits of marriage (e.g. a joint tax declaration) without the disavantages in case of separation (sharing out of all assets, for example).

Of course, if I was in a homosexual relationship, I think I would still be pissed off that I can only enter into this sort of Marriage Lite and not a full marriage.

Definitely not necessary to name change on marriage. I only changed my name recently and that was purely my choice. I wanted to celebrate the fact that we had been married for a long time.

My surname is not really part of my identity but then it never was. I am Gnome, the De Plume bit is for administrative purposes to separate me from the other Gnomes

I do see a difference between living together and marriage, I'm afraid I do see a lesser commitment. I'm afraid I do discount the living together years. DH & I have been together for practically all our adult lives but I measure the time from when we got married (ie stood up in front of people and made a public declaration of commitment) not from some other (and to me) lesser date.

JosieRosie I'm not judging you personally but you were asking for views!

'I do see a difference between living together and marriage, I'm afraid I do see a lesser commitment. I'm afraid I do discount the living together years'

Fair enough Gnome, entirely up to you

'Civil partnership makes sense to us as we don't have children, and we have very different financial statuses, so marriage would be unnecessarily binding to us at the moment (we haven't ruled it out for the future). Civil partnership allows us to have some of the benefits of marriage (e.g. a joint tax declaration) without the disavantages in case of separation (sharing out of all assets, for example)'
Thanks for this Theala, you've described some of the differences beween marriage and CP better than I did [smle]

Actually dissolution of a civil partnership is exactly like divorce, except that adultery isn't grounds for a dissolution. The court has the same power to divide up assets as in divorce. I see an urban myth in the making here.