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

Wamster (I really said I wouldn't engage, but hey ho), we all know how marrigae works, we all know about registry office marriages, and now you are being just boring by endlessly repeating this (aside from starting the spurious thread about a 'friend' on the back of this one). The thread was an attempt to have a debate which you just constantly seem to be trying to shut down with your, frankly, patronising posts.

Blackduck, no offence but if you're clued up on how marriage works, given the fact that you have stated you want legal and financial recognition etc by the state, why don't you just go and get married? Or sort things out yourself like a lot of cohabitees do? Perhaps you have done so, I don't know.

I mean why don't you think and analyse and reduce marriage for what it is:
a legal contract to inform the state that you wish to be seen as a couple.
That's what it is for. Your relationship with your partner is what you (generic 'you') make it. The legal status does not matter one jot when it comes to emotions and what society thinks about people's relationships.

Nobody else gives a shit about your marital status except the tax and benefits systems and legal and financial companies.

You think that I'm being boring? Fair enough. I think you are being idiotic by not being able to suss out that marriage is fundamentally a legal thing and everything else i.e. religion, love, emotions are optional. Optional in that a lot of marriages I know have don't include any of them. Or, if they once did, do not anymore.

I feel the same way. Me and my partner have been together for almost ten years and are completely committed to each other but I do not want to get married for feminist reasons. However, I do feel I'm missing out when it comes to being recognised in front the law. If something happened to me I probably still legally belong to my parents, and he to his as we are not officially recognised as a couple, which makes me feel, besides all the potential legal hassle, really sad.

What I would really like to have is a civil partnership, where me and my partner can be truly equal and celebrate our relationship free from marriage's patriarchal past. There is a petition to overturn the twin ban on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships, please sign it if you feel the same way: equallove.org.uk/petition

--

alittlefeministblogonlanguage.blogspot.com

Alittle - intersting blog! Will read more later....

I've been lucky enough to be married nearly 30 years and wouldn't have had it any other way, but there were a couple of incorrect myths on an early post. Your assets do not automatically become joint assets when you marry, and neither does your estate pass automatically to your spouse if you die. The latter myth is particularly dangerous. With relatively small estates that will be the case but any larger amounts (e.g. the value of a reasonably sized house) a proportion may go to children and that proportion could be taxable. You might have seen articles a year or so ago when a widow was having to sue her infant children to avoid a tax bill that would have meant selling the family home. This is all fixable with proper wills. Everyone should have one, particularly when they have children. And no, I'm not a lawyer.

TDI I take you point about the built in protection - ie checking age etc, and that could still be in place. But why not be able to say we commit to a Legal partnership and all that involves without the other stuff? Yes, as I said before you can do that by doing various things (will, signing for nok, signing for parental responsibility etc etc) but inheritance tax is based on marriage only, as are other things. I think there are far more complex things bound up in this. There are many and miriad reasons why people don't want to get married, but at the moment it's that, or take your chances (having ensured as much legal protection as you can of course :) )

I think if it's true that "There is a petition to overturn the twin ban on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships" the people there are missing the point. It's not that partnerships and marriages are so very different--in fact the partnership concept was created to allow people (same sex couples) to have legally recognized relationships that historically only opposite-sex couples could have. It was just too much to ask Mrs and Mr Public to accept "same sex marriage" so they called it something different, but I believe that once it's done, it's legally the same.

So when someone talks about a "ban on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships" what they're talking about is just being allowed to call it a marriage if your partner matches your chromosomes, or a partnership if s/he doesn't. Nothing changes but the name.

But then if someone says "I'd be willing to sign up for a partnership but not a marriage" does that indicate that what the relationship is called is actually important? Marriage comes with too much baggage, maybe.

i dont understand wanting a cp for heterosexuals to replicate marriage
if you want legal protection and a status then get just get married.cp replicates marriage just different semantics and title.i see no value in an alternative ceremony for heterosexual couples when marriage is available to them already

i understand cp for gay couples as previously this option was not available to them.cp offers gay couples a legal status that was previously not open to them. heterosexual couples have always had marriage

Blackduck, when you say the "other stuff", what do you mean? Is it just the word "marriage" that you object to, or is it something else? I'm struggling to see what there is to object to in a basic civil ceremony other than that it's called marriage, which obviously does carry baggage.

Great post, alittlefeminist - that's exactly how I feel too. I look forward to reading your blog!

You've hit the nail on the head here TeiTetua - for me, marriage certainly does come with too much baggage. As other posters have said, CPs and marriage are the same legally, the only thing that's different is the name but for me that's a crucial difference! No 'husband' and 'wife',just partner and partner. The Equal Love campaign which has been referenced above would also like to extend civil partnerships to include pairs of people who are not in a sexual relationship with each other (siblings, friends, long-term flatmates for example) who want to be each others' next-of-kin. So in that sense CPs are equal to, but not 'the same' as marriage. I like the inclusive, equal aspect to CPs which marriage doesn't have.

rosie,your a bit off mark.anyone can be nok.+-

anyone can be nok rosie,you don't need s convoluted campaigh.any adult woyh capacity can be a nok. youre over complicating and overstating this. no comparable arrangement to cp is required

i posted this earler will re-post about nok

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

inengland 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.

Had forgotten you posted this earlier scottishmummy - it's useful, thanks. NOK is not the only issue of course, there are also financial implications to being legal partners, especially in the case of children

if you want to be legal partners go solicitor or get married if straight.cp if gay
no other convoluted equality or somesuch needed

scotishmummy that applies to thinks like who to call if conditions change while in hospital

but if the person dies without a will the NOK reverts to the traditional hierarchy and is not necessarily that person

Well onus is on individual to be clear whom nok is
Can't expect authorities to be mind readers and know it's your best pal and not your parents for example.if it is significant then needvTo notiminate a nok

but people do misunderstand and think their NOK for NHS and similar purposes = their NOK for probate purposes if there's no valid will. its not (unless that person is NOK under sucession)

Yes it's different premise but people should put finances etc in order and do a will.can't compel them but easier for all if will is written.

and actually in the NHS when the legal teams get involved in very complicated end of life issues the "my neighbour is my NOK" request is sometimes challenged too

I agree with all of scottishmummy says but also have to agree that if a person dies intestate (without a will-not being patronising here. I wasn't familiar with word myself until a few years ago) then the 'rules of intestacy' as to inherits the estate of the deceased person will apply in the UK (not sure about Scotland) which is:

1, Spouse of deceased
If no spouse...

2, Children of deceased
If no children..

3, Parents of deceased

and so on. If estate is worth more than a certain amount -as said by bachsingingmum- then the rules she said apply.

The point is cohabitees are not mentioned. I think this is only right-I don't think I'd necessarily want my partner to inherit if the relationship were a casual one and it's not up to the state to decide the seriousness or not of a couple's relationship for them. Such things shouldn't be automatic like a spouse or child.
Although I believe cohabitees can claim from their late partner's estate under the 'Dependency Act' or some such legal thingie.

What I think would be of more worth than an 'equal love' campaign is a government campaign to inform people about the importance of making wills etc if in a serious cohabiting relationship.

Nok needs to be robustly recorded,can do it with gp and if appropriately recorded and with a nok who is an adult with capacity then should be ok

"Nok needs to be robustly recorded,can do it with gp and if appropriately recorded and with a nok who is an adult with capacity then should be ok"

YESSSSS but that still doesn't make them NOK in ALL circumstances! that only really applies to being informed about medical things / being called in emergency. There are other aspects to being a FULL NOK that it wont cover

Yes and clearly I'm talking about the medical/healthcare side of nok.other aspects go see a solicitor

and I'm telling you that when the NHS legal teams have to get involved relatives do at times trump the allocated friend. it'll NEVER be as comprehensive as a "real" NOK, KIN trump it at times