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

TooMuch, I agree with Gnome: you could get married with two witnesses off the street, not tell anyone and go on calling yourselves partners. Being legally married doesn't oblige you to call yourself a wife! And it does save a huge amount of heartache if you haven't put in all the legal protection you need and one of you dies - you truly can't rely on everyone being civilised after a death or a break-up.

Like Gnome I didn't at all like my parents' marriage, but mine and DH's is different.

I've happily committed to my splendid partner for almost two decades without being married, and have always considered marriage a nasty, historically-retrograde institution, involving ceremonies freighted with patriarchal traditions etc. We are expecting our first child in the spring, and are reluctantly (reminded by what you say, TooMuch) planning to marry in jeans with two witnesses off the street and not tell anyone, at some point before the baby arrives - purely to sort out the legal/ parental/ next-of-kin stuff we've always intended to sort out with a solicitor, but never got around to!

I plan to stick the certificate (or whatever it is you get?) in the filing cabinet with the other dull-but-crucial documents, and forget all about it. However, I keep putting off thinking about it, because I really don't care for the idea of being married, and the notion of being a 'wife' (even if only me and my lovely partner know) makes me nauseous. No rings, no changes of name, no photos. Our long and happy relationship is what we consider worth celebrating, not the fact that we are getting married.

DH filed our marriage certificate in with 'Receipts & Guarantees'

'Receipts & Guarantees' ha ha. Ok I'm gonna find out how much it costs. But even if only we know, I'm afraid I'll be relinquishing some part of my liberty or identity or something. Yeah that sounds daft. Really like the idea of no rings.

just for the record marriage doesnt=sort out nok.anyone can be your nominated nok

in england nok, is not defined by law and can be any capeable adult.
in scotland nok is also not defined there is no legal definition of Next of Kin in scotland and it can be whoever a person appoints. Usual Practice was this would be deemed to be the closest relative (by blood or marriage) but it can in fact be anyone you choose. If there is any dubiety here it may be worth you nominating your next of kin in a written format if you wish. scotland did discuss whether cp would automatically be nok, but did not go down that route. in reality these days most trusts and gp acknowledged and aware nok not necessarily immediate family

common myth is that it is family only-this is not the case. you can nominate your next of kin, you must inform the NHS trust, GP etc.get it documented in notes this can be a cohabitee. all competent adult patients are asked to nominate their next of kin formally on admission to hospital. This is not simply a contact number but has potential significance, as the nominated person must be willing to best reflect what they believe would have been your wishes in the event of your incapacity or death. It is this person that staff would turn to for advice/guidance/help about your care if you were unable to respond yourself. For example, this might be because you are unconscious or unable to communicate due to illness or injury.

in the event of your death, it is your next of kin who would be consulted about bereavement issues such as making funeral arrangements, arranging a hospital post mortem or organ/tissue donation.

the role of next of kin is to express your likely wishes when you cannot.Your next of kin cannot consent or withhold consent for care on your behalf. But as your next of kin, their views on what you would have decided will be sought. These views will contribute to the decision that the clinicians caring for you (and who have a duty to act in your best interest) will make regarding your treatment and care. Thus, if you cannot make that decision for yourself, the final decision of care rests with the clinician in charge of your care.

If, in the case of an emergency, were nok not nominated nhs would seek advice from whoever we believe to be 'closest' to you and best able to reflect your wishes; for example, your current partner or closest relative.

Historically, the next of kin was the spouse or nearest relative of the patient, but Your next of kin does not need to be a blood relative or spouse; they can be your long-term partner, cohabitee or even a close friend.

there is a NOK card can be used if wished.your nok card.this will guide nhs staff and make your wishes explicit isn't a statutory document but does the trick, but do also let your gp know your nok nomination

Scottishmummy I think you are making a valid point. From reading what you have posted I guess that where a patient were married there would be an automatic assumption that the spouse was next of kin unless there was evidence to the contrary.

The issue arises for non-married couples especially where there is long running dispute with the outlaws. In this situation there is a risk of unseemly squabbles of the patient's sick bed. It is very easy to imagine the scenario of stressed out partner and bonkers parents she never looked after him, I'm his mother.....

Everyone means to tie up all the loose ends but there is always something better to do and anyway we are all the living proof that death happens to other people.

Thanks for the next-of-kin information scottishmummy, that's really useful. I always thought it had to be your nearest blood relative if you didn't have a legal partner so I had been using my mum. She lives in a different country and we have a difficult relationship so I will be using DP from now on.

'I don't really want to be a wife. The connotations are too negative for me. Anyone else feel like this?'

Oh yes! TooMuch, would you feel differently about a civil partnership than you do about marriage?

do get NOK decision recorded formally,with gp. and if there are ongoing health appts etc write to the hospital too. and the NOK card is useful

it is commonly held belief (esp on mn) that the cohabitee/partner can not be NOK

any adult with capacity can be NOK

JosieRosie, Why would anybody feel any differently about a (UK) civil partnership and civil marriage? .

As this is supposed to be the feminist section of MN, can I try to bring it back to feminism for a moment?

A woman in a civil partnership would be treated the same legally and financially as one in a marriage.

I genuinely fail to see what the difference would be for a woman in a long-term cohabiting relationship. What actual difference would it be for her to be civilly-partnered or married? Legally, they are the same.
There would be no difference there. In fact, it might be worse for women because AFAIK adultery is not accepted as a reason to dissolve (divorce) from the relationship.
Hardly a step forward for feminism, then. 'Yeah we know your civil partner sleeps around, but still, you'll just have to put up and shut up'. At least with marriage, women can use adultery as a valid excuse for divorcing.

Also, I seriously think you need to understand that it is not the legal status of a couple's relationship that gives it meaning. Being a 'partner', 'civil partner' or 'wife' doesn't really matter: it is the quality of the relationship that matters.

I really don't think you understand this. It really, really should be obvious.

You seem to be clambering for a change in the law to provide an option that already exists for you.

Being a 'wife'/husband or a civil partner is only different to being a cohabiting partner in the legal sense of the word. Not to downplay the legal sense at all, it is very important, but, really, who gives a f* about what they are called?

i care thats why im not a wife
i care alot actually.i care not to be a wife i amke that active choice.so its not as simple as just words

I've been living with DP for about 6 years now. I have never been married, and do not intend to marry. The house is in my name, my estate would go to my family.
I have just never seen the point of marriage - but there again I don't have children, I think the legal side would make me think again if I did.

This is quite a funny thread for me as I can't relate to the connotations of 'wife' and so on at all. I had no bridesmaids and wasn't given away (?) and continued to call myself by my usual name and just had a lovely day in which I felt very equal and very loved by my partner, who I hope felt the same.

I see 'marriage' as a long line of evolving traditions which legally (or emotionally) bind people together and felt entirely happy recreating them in the way I saw fit. I like being married as we refer to ourselves as this married unit, but I expect this is the same for those in a partnership.

If a man didn't want to marry me, I would not have children with them, as it is a very active rejection of the sharing of material goods and often (IMO) emotional commitment by some men who I have seen dangling the promise of marriage over women in a very undesirable way. I am not sure the same is true for women who are not married though.

The only thing I do disagree with legally is that I would prefer the partners in marriage to be able to retain their previous goods (e.g. houses etc) on marriage, so if they divorced, they would retain them. I would not claim my husband's previous properties if we divorced as they are not jointly aquired or paid for.

What scottishmummy said

wamster, your agressive, condescending and patronising tone was wearing thin from the beginning. Now it seems to be descending into bullying. You are the only person on this thread who is shouting other people down and seem to be hellbent on engaging me in particular in some kind of screaming bunfight. Please take it somewhere else, I'm not interested.

JosieRosie, I think you need to grow up about this issue. The feminist forum is not one where everybody agrees and I am not being condescending to your nor am I being patronising.

You did not, in my opinion, come on here for a genuine discussion about the pro's and con's of marriage.

I think you came here to push your agenda for civil partnerships-which given that they are identical to civil marriage for heterosexual people, are pointless.

And also I feel that it is appropriate to point out on the feminist forum that a woman who is trapped in a marriage will be equally trapped in a civil partnership.
I also feel it is important to point out that if civil partnerships as they stand would deny women the option of dissolving the relationship on grounds of their partner having sex with other people. Because it would.
Forget the 'PACS' agreement, they don't exist in the UK.

In short, I have responded appropriately to your notion that civil partnerships are somehow great for women and given my opinion that they ain't all they are cracked up to be.

I think you have deceived people with your opening post.
You don't want marriage which is fair enough. Believe me, I am not criticising you for not wanting to get married, but you want what most people think of as being marriage i.e. civil partnerships (in the UK, there is no difference between CP's and marriage from a legal viewpoint).

It's the equivalent of opening a thread about how terrible Pepsi is as it rots teeth, multinational, taking over the world etc and then suddenly announcing that Coke is OK.

I think marriage is ace. I don't think anyone wants a partnership of the sort we're all talking about with someone they don't want the following from (in addition to legalities):

• love
• emotional commitment
• trust and openness

Marriage is a simple legal ceremony which aims IMO to celebrate the above in addition to providing the legal protection which is the main reason lots of posters here want to make some kind of a commitment. For me personally, legality was the last thing on my mind - I wanted a party to celebrate the love and commitment me and DH share, and for all our friends and family to share in our happiness and toast us, and wish us luck with our partnership!

I think if no-one had invented marriage, women and men would be keen to make this particular legal agreement one which is also a celebration. And there's nothing wrong with that IMO - across MN there can be sniffiness at celebrations of marriage which are seen as extravagant, which I think is really sad. There ain't much in life worth celebrating with as much pizzazz as the slightly awe-inspiring agreement to love and trust each other completely, with legal backing. I just can't see how a belief in romantic love is anything unfeminist. Modern marriage is entirely feminist by nature - I think people's issues with it including yours, OP, stem from the patriarchy's design of the ceremony itself rather than anything fundamentally wrong with he concept of marriage or of weddings.

quite simply have never wanted to be married.at all
and one can find an abundance of love and cohesion without marriage
commitment,cohesion,mutual respect are not exclusive to marriage.absence of marriage doesnt indicate absence of commitment or harmony.

but somehow many marrieds feel compelled to effuse on and on about marriage as if by some war of attrition talking about it will render it more appealing. and anecdotal stories of so and so woman never married - partner died now penury. so uh-ho watch oot...

im not anti-marriage im just not married,and don't see its necessity

scottishmummy, you're clearly very organised and efficient and have sorted everything out and in your case there isn't any practical reason to be married, so if you don't want to be that's the end of the story. And of course I agree that love, cohesion, mutual respect etc are not the exclusive preserve of married couples!

But as this thread shows, lots of people aren't that organised -the practical advantage of marriage is that it sorts out all the legalities without couples having to sit down and think about lots of unpleasant possible scenarios - all they have to do is plan a celebration of their relationship, and all the unpleasant stuff gets tied up without them actually having to think about it. Let's face it, no-one likes planning for what happens when they die. If they did more people would have wills. Even fewer people want to sit down and think seriously about what happens if they split up.

scottishmummy, out of interest, is it marriage specifically you object to, or any legal partnership? Just curious I feel the same as you do in your previous post by the way

marriage. never fancied it.at all
but certainly we have tied up all the legalities.

There is an element of marriage (and civil partnerships) of not knowing precisely what you are getting into. I doubt many people know all the implications of it. An ex-spouse/civil partner crawling out of the woodwork to claim monies even after divorce by way of example.
There is something to be said for sorting the legalities out how you want them to be and nothing else.

wamster any relationship.married or not can be fraught. the nature of human relationships is that many people have pasts and secrets.not just unmarried folk.only got to look at mn relationships/aibu to see the tumultous marriage threads too

scottishmummy, I realise that any relationship can be fraught. Please re-read my post at 19.17, my point is that the good side of an unmarried couple sorting out their own legal affairs is that they can arrange them to suit themselves. That's all I meant, nothing else.
Believe me, I have zero problem with accepting that some marriages are terrible and some cohabiting relationships are great!

love is a wonderful thing
gay love,straight love,hug a tree love
just make sure you tie up the legalities. and i love a guid wedding.im first on dance floor,last to leave and am guaranteed to cry

well the marrieds are surely going to effuse about the institution - they see the value else they wouldn't have done it. Rather than trying to lure people into some sinister cult