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

Josie - Theala is talking about the civil partnership laws in the country she lives in, which isn't the UK. My understanding like TDI's is that in Britain civil partnership has exactly the same legal obligations etc as marriage. (I didn't know about the adultery thing though, that's interesting.)

Hence why people on this thread are saying that if you're keen on civil partnership why not just get married. I appreciate that the connotations of 'marriage' (burden of tradition, oppression of women, role of religion etc) are very different from that of 'civil partnership' (it's civil and it's a partnership, what's not to like?). But really - it's just a linguistic distinction.

Never get married. The institution fails miserably with selfishness, entitlement, and biased family court law. People are much better off keeping their resources to themselves in this day and age, investing in retirement, and leaving others to fend for themselves.

The notion of the nuclear family has been broken over the last 60 years, and will continue to be until western cultures collapse under entitlement programs. Japan is already experiencing this as young men opt out of going for the time honored traditions of "protector" and "provider". They work jobs that require them to pay as few taxes as possible. DV shelters, welfare, and government grants for scholarships dry up as tax revenue decreases.

Marriage is dead, and no one will pay the price for it's death.

Thanks, MooncupGoddess, I hadn't realised that Theala's original post was about a different country.

Devlin11, are you reading the same thread as everyone else?

Huh. I'm actually talking about the PACS in France, TDI, which really is marriage lite for both/all sexes. If civil partnership in Britain is like you say, than I can see an opening for a marriage-lite style partnership which would be beneficial to both parties.

Yes, reading your post properly I thought you might be talking about PACS: I remember it coming in. And I think you have a good point about a possible opening for "marriage-lite": at the moment it's living together, with no legal recognition or protection at all, or marriage if you're straight, civil partnership if you're gay.

I can see a marriage-lite working only where there are no children in the relationship and the partnership is finacially balanced. Therein lies the rub - people may go into a relationship with all good intentions about being sensible and pragmatic if the relationship ends. Problem is that if the details of the relationship change (children, illness, inheritance to name but a few) it gets harder to be sensible and pragmatic if there is a break-up

I dont agree with Devlin's jaundiced view of marriage. Many of my family and friends are in long term marriages and I dont see in their relationships the selfishness and self of entitlement Devlin referred to.

This is a really interesting thread JosieRosie, thanks for starting it (and keeping the discussion going!)

I find myself asking a similar set of questions to you at the moment. DP and I are planning to have children in the near future. Despite being a life-long feminist, and despite always feeling that marriage wasn't in the slightest bit of importance to me, (there is no part of me that harbours any kind of bride fantasy) in the past couple of years and particularly as we get closer to taking the step of starting a family, I feel very much drawn to the idea of marriage in a way that I'm finding difficult to unpick. The advice others have given on this thread - to be really careful before starting a family without the security that marriage provides - is helping me to rationalise this a little bit, although there's a part of my brain that I don't understand going 'but then does that give marriage the function of some sort of trap or cage that it's harder to escape from?' Does anyone understand that thought and can anyone help me unpick it?

Personally, I like the idea of formalising our planned commitment to each other, and of doing this in front of and with the people in our lives who are close to us and who will help support our life together in different ways. I feel like I'd have to start from scratch with working out how I'd like that ceremony to work and would definitely need to dispense with all the traditional trimmings that for me are overhangs of marriage's patriarchal past. There's absolutely no way in the world I'd give up my name or allow my wedding to be a series of men giving speeches.

But I do think that as I've got older I've realised that there's something important and transformative about the rituals in life which give our lives shape and definition and which help us make transitions effectively (eg consciously committing to a shared future). I feel like some sort of public ritual would be a positive, affirmative thing for us, if we can find a way to 'author' what marriage means to us and dispense with what it has historically meant - which I optimistically hope should be possible.

Being grim and realistic, Quodlibet, it's having children that's the trap. Married or unmarried, if you're childless you can get out of a bad relationship and walk away. If you're married and the higher earner, it might cost you something financially to leave, and there's more paperwork involved, but there is anyway if there are things in your joint names.

Changing what happens at the wedding isn't hard unless you have relatives who want to stick their oar in - none of it's required, it's all just convention. I made a speech at my wedding and had a best woman (who also made a speech) rather than a bridesmaid. No-one "gave me away" because I was no-one's to give. And I totally agree that rituals to mark major rites of passage are very important. But then I would agree with you on that - I am married, after all!

My understanding is that in other countries a kind of 'marriage-lite' exists.
I think it is called 'PACS' in France.
However, in the UK, civil partnerships are exactly the same as marriage for straight people- think about it. In the age of (proper and right) equality for gay people, how can they not be allowed the same legal and financial rights of marriage?

So, yeah, in the UK-where I presume JosieRosie- is from, frankly, civil partnership and marriage are the same.

Anybody thinking that civil partnerships are some kind of 'marriage-lite' in the UK needs to have their eyes opened to this fact.

I did not know about adultery aspect being different- can't see this being liberating or better though, so a woman can't 'dissolve' a civil partnership on the grounds of him being an adulterous pig? Not sure if this is a forward step for feminism myself!
Perhaps 'unreasonable behaviour' would cover it, though.

Sorry to be pedantic, JosieRosie, but I think you are after some kind of 'PACS' agreement -which is sort of fair enough, but don't think that a 'civil partnership' in the UK is some kind of legal and financial 'marriage-lite', because the implications of being in a CP and leaving a CP are the same as marriage.

Put bluntly, a civil partner has as much right to fleece a spouse they no longer want as a 'married' partner. Ain't equality grand?

Interesting post Quodlibet - I grew up determined to be financially dependent, have a career, keep my own name, etc, etc, I never wanted a wedding to be the pinnacle of all my aspirations as many of my school friends wanted to. I remember a few years ago a colleague telling me how proud she was to be addressed as Mrs DHfirstname DHsurname now she was married and I didn't get it at all, still don't. As for the thought of a big white wedding, no way! But I never felt that I didn't want to be married, just that I didn't want it to be the only thing I aspired to, the thing that defined me (hence no Mrs here). I agree with Tadlow that children are the bigger commitment, so if I hadn't been prepared to marry the person I wanted to have children with (or him to marry me) I would seriously have doubted my level of commitment to the future children of that relationship. Marriage doesn't have to change the person you are, it just adds another layer to your life.

If my understanding is correct, Civil Partnerships outside of the UK are essentially temporary arrangements. I lived in the Netherlands for a while and there you could declare someone as your tax partner. As I recall this declaration was made year by year. It worked there but the Dutch are an essentially pragmatic people so I think that fitted with the national character .

I think these temporary civil partnerships are essentially business arrangements. This works fine until the essential nature of the relationship changes.

In my opinion where the two partners are wanting to make a long term commitment then it has to be made wholeheartedly and a 100% commitment. It needs to cover all eventualities. It needs to cover those times when the balance of economic power within the relationship changes. It needs to cover the times when the partnership is affected by ill health.

It doesnt matter what you call this commitment. You can marry in secret with just a couple of strangers off the street and still refer to each other as partners. The difference will be that you cant break the partnership without considerable difficulty and expense but that just reflects the depth of the commitment.

The history of marriage is fascinating. In the UK many of the rituals do in fact reflect the essential business nature of a marriage:

• the veil put back so that bride and groom know who they are marrying and there are no last minute substitutions
• the taking and breaking of hands so that unwilling partners can flee
• the unlocked door to allow unwilling partners to leave
• the bridesmaids to ensure that the wedding takes place
• the best man to ensure that the dowry is paid

Despite my interest in the history, I am married in the present.

Great post Quodlibet and welcome to the thread! I agree with you and other posters that the deciding factor for a lot of people seems to be (the prospect of) parenthood. I completely understand this and wouldn't want to have children without any legal security myself. As I've said, DP and I are child-free so this takes that factor out of the equation for us. You asked if marriage provides a 'trap or cage' that it's harder to escape from - it's an interesting thought! I guess it could be seen that way but it could also be seen in a wholly pragmatic way, that it's making sure you, your partner and your future children would have to be provided for if your relationship were to end in the future. Hopefully this wouldn't be the case of course, but even a brief glance at the Relationships thread (or an audit of your real-life acquaintances no doubt) shows that not everything goes according to plan! That's not much of an answer, sorry!

'There's absolutely no way in the world I'd .....allow my wedding to be a series of men giving speeches'

Beyond ghastly. I have cringed myself inside out at the weddings of friends where the bride sat silent and looking pretty while her new husband, dad, brothers all engaged in verbal backslapping. One really awful example was the bride's brother talking in his speech about daring his new brother-in-law to do something a bit daredevil on his stag night (can't remember the details) with the rationale that 'if you're going to marry my sister, you're got to prove you're a real man'. Cue much laughter from the assembled guests with one notable exception

Fair enough at finding the whole 'traditional wedding' thing cringeworthy but it suits those that want it, however, there is no need to get married like that.

Why don't you look into whether the 'PACS' in France has validity in the UK (if people made the arrangement in France, that is?)

Even if the gay civil partnerships that we have are extended to heterosexuals, they will legally be identical to marriage, anyway, so pointless from a legal perspective. Might as well get married.
Sorry, if I seemed a bit off with you about this; but it did seem as if you were saying that civil partnerships were somehow trivial and didn't have the weight or gravitas of straight marriage. Believe me, they are as every bit as serious from a legal and financial viewpoint as marriage.
Besides which, having attended a few myself (damned sight more interesting than the usual marriages I have been to!), they are seen by both partners as being a lifetime commitment and celebrated in much the same way.
In fact, the first one I attended cost the guys a small fortune. Flowers, about 200 guests, marquee, fireworks, the bloody works! Hey, it's their money not mine! Everybody talked about the occasion as a 'marriage' and how excited they were about the 'wedding'.
Really, everybody thought the chaps were getting 'married' not 'civilly-partnered'. The guys didn't mind- having waiting ages to cement their relationship in the same way as heterosexual people, a few semantics did not bother them.

If marriage really does repulse you despite the reasonable efforts of people here to see it in a sensible light, either you've got to make your own legal arrangements or just accept that you and your partner can just end things with no obligation to the other partner (children are a separate issue).

There really is no other choice in the UK.

I'd quite like a wedding I always like a good excuse to get pissed with my mates but legally and long-term financially it would be a really bad idea for me. I'd lose my sole parental rights and DP would have a right to a share of my house if we split.

For most Mums marriage does offer good legal protection, though.

The name changing thing- I just DONT GET IT!

I think even without children there are still good reasons for marrying. The big one is the 'next-of-kin' thing. Can someone be declared next of kin (I dont know so a genuine question)?

Even if a declaration of next of kin has been made there are still huge potential problems. If one or other of a non-married couple falls seriously ill or injured initial decisions may be made about care without reference to a long term partner.

Without a declaration of next of kin (assuming that is possible) decisions about things like organ donation will be made by parents not the long term partner.

Another thought to consider is that while someone is legally married to you, they cant be legally married to someone else!

While these thoughts may seem a bit gloomy it is in fact in extremis that the details of a commitment need to have been nailed down beforehand.

This is all very helpful and thought-provoking.

WRT nailing down the details of the commitment, I reckon I could do with (from a feminist perspective) a list of the pragmatic advantages of marriage (aside from any romantic notions).

So far we've got:

• legally entitles you as next of kin
• protection of rights and assets of self and future children in the case of a separation
• tax advantages?
• Formally seen as changed status in eyes of society
• Ritual that can help you adjust to new status
• errrrm......

This I find very interesting WhoMoved:
if I hadn't been prepared to marry the person I wanted to have children with (or him to marry me) I would seriously have doubted my level of commitment to the future children of that relationship

I think I'm still wrestling with the idea that marriage 'proves' commitment to the future - there's something in me that bucks against the notion of 'I won't have children with you unless we're married first' - it seems such a hopelessly old-fashioned bind, but on the flip-side I can totally see how pragmatic it is. Or have I got it back to front?

Well, it proves the intent, doesn't guarantee any success. What I was trying to say is that marriage is the lesser of the two commitments, if I wasn't committed enough to marry DH I would have worried that I wasn't committed enough to those children. I would not have been worried about not actually being married first, but wanted to be at least agreed that we would marry. I would also wonder if the children might worry as they got older that we were not as committed as parents that are married? I have to say that in my family and general circle of friends, practically everyone has married before having children, so it just seems like the normal thing to do for me.

Hi, my partner and I have 2 kids but aren't married. My feeling is that I love him so much that I don't believe marriage can add anything more than a whole lot of expense and some legal shit that really isn't romantic and a solicitor can sort. My daughter has asked me if we are going to marry and I said no. I explained that people can love each other without being married. She knows we are in love and happy and that is all that matters.
My mother was married to a controlling and abusive man and she was a sahm so felt she couldn't leave him. As a teenager I resented her dependence on him and could sense that they were unhappy from a very early age. I do think the surname issue is a real conundrum though when you have kids.
Btw Partner/ bf been together nearly 20 years.

TooMuch - a solicitor can deal with the tedious bits but in your case has that actually happened? So many people mean to write all sorts of wise and sensible clauses into eminently sensible wills and agreements.

Tragically, they seldom actually get as far as the solicitor. Yet another good intention on the road to hell.

With a marriage all the tedious legal bits are dealt with in one fell swoop. There is no obligation to put an a white dress, eat stale cake or drink flat fizzy wine (though of course you could do this as a kind of ironic gesture).

While a couple can live happily together without all this boring legal stuff it's when they die, fall ill, fall out that all that boring stuff needs to have been cleared up when there is good will on both sides.

Quodlibet another thing for your list - a marriage makes clear your relationship to your family and friends. My family is quite scattered, we are not all in regular contact with each other. It is sometimes difficult to know who is a friend, who is a long term partner.

Gnome I hate to admit it but you are so right. We have been meaning to do the solicitor thing for a while now but it just falls to the bottom of the priority list. I think the thing is that no one really wants to imagine the worst case scenario when they are happy. We both only want to imagine that everyone will behave in a civilised manner in the event of one of our deaths.
God perhaps it is easier to just do a brief marriage thing. I just feel a bit sick at the thought of it. I don't really want to be a wife. The connotations are too negative for me. Anyone else feel like this?

unmarried we have seen solicitor about property,wills,finances
i have just never wanted to be married

Sort of. I am, as I have said, quite pro marriage, but don't really like being called wife, loathe the title Mrs, get irritated when people assume I changed my name, so yes I do kind of know how you feel. I remember waking up in cold sweat panic attack sort of way when I dreamt I was having a huge white wedding and being announced as Mrs DHSurnname at the wedding, it felt as though I was drowning. However the wedding passed off uneventfully, I have remained Ms Ownsurname for all purposes so I was worrying unnecessarily.

Another one who would not have children with a man unless I was married to him. Unless I was going to outearn my partner over the course of the relationship (no), I felt I owed it to my children to ensure that they (and me) were protected should the marriage fail or their father died. I would not put them in a vulnerable position and I won't bring them into the world unless I did what I could to give them security.

I don't have any misgivings about the patriarchy. I love the status 'wife' accords to me. I believe my husband to be more romantic than me about marriage. It makes a difference to him that he calls me his 'wife' and his children part of our family unit.

TooMuch - getting married does sign you up to all the legal stuff and is in fact the cheapest way of doing things - it's a package deal.

You dont have to tell anyone. Just put the marriage certificate in a safe place.

I didnt like the look of my parents' marriage but I am not doing theirs, I'm doing mine (and DHs).