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

Telling me are you?your indignant ire is misplaced,but as you are

Woah, I've just read this from the start and it's a fascinating thread. I am also of the opinion that civil partnerships should be made available for heterosexual couples (and marriage to gay couples too). I signed that Equal Love petition a couple of years ago now .

It sucks that DP and I have no legal recognition (other than wills). I hate it. But I will NOT take part in a ceremony that turns me into a wife - there's no getting away from it, I would be a wife, he would be my husband, two things I have never wanted or been interested in - and I would feel a complete utter hypocrite. Why should the whole thing be tainted with such uncomfortable feelings, when I would be thrilled and excited about undergoing a CP - it would be modest, financially, but would still damn well include rings and a nice party!!

People like wamster seem to think that if I want legal recognition, then I should want to be a wife. This is not the case.

I don't see what the problem is. Plenty of other countries are progressive enough to have introduced CPs for straight couples, and I have no doubt they will be here too; it's just a matter of time.

Oh, and although I have in the past toyed with the idea of doing it in secret for the legal security, and just keeping the marriage certificate in the filing cabinet, to be opened in the event of death , I just couldn't do the dishonesty bit very well. It would be bound to come up - friends quite often say things like "not married yet? You'll give in eventually!" or whatever, and I wouldn't want to sit squirming uncomfortably and lying - wouldn't feel good about it.

I think the problem here is that you're making the assumption that it is the name of something which matters (cp's and marriage are same legally).

I don't think that this is the case. Marriage is not how it is because of the word 'marriage' or because of the word 'wife', it is how it is because of the function of what it does: i.e. legally binds a couple imposing a legal structure upon a cohabiting couple that it can be hard to escape from without going through the disapproval of society at at some level.
ANY couple-regardless of whether married or not- will face some disapproval if they split up when they have children. A cohabiting woman will still be told: 'think of the children' and subjected to the same pressure to stay in an unhappy marriage.

Therefore anything which imposes the identical legal ties of marriage upon a cohabiting couple will be seen as being the same as marriage eventually.

I don't blame people for not wanting to get married or not liking the term 'wife', I do, however, think that they are being really unrealistic and just a bit unreasonable to think that a whole new set of laws should be brought in to accommodate their dislike.
Sort it out yourselves legally like some people here have done.

Sorry, that should be: 'subjected to the same pressure to stay in an unhappy cohabiting relationship'.

We're not being unrealistic, wamster, as the institution of civil partnership for straight couples has been introduced in other countries. It's not pie in the sky. Other countries have accepted that it is reasonable and sensible for some people to want a CP, and are now giving them the option. So why on earth not the UK?

(actually, I'm in Scotland, and when we become independent in a couple of years I have high hopes that CPs will be introduced for straight couples not long thereafter. I've been in touch with the Justice Secretary up here. We like to get in there first and do things ahead of England - the smoking ban, right to breastfeed etc!)

Oh, and of course the name of something matters! Words have connotations ... I don't want to be associated with the word "wife"!!

Because I think that those 'civil partnerships' that exist in other countries are not the equivalent of legal marriage that civil partnerships in the UK are.

The PACS arrangement in France is not the same as French marriage. The legal rights and responsibilities are different to marriage.

CP's in the UK are legally equal to marriage. Why would the UK introduce civil partnerships for heterosexual couples in the UK when civil marriage for heterosexuals also exists? It makes no sense.

Words do have connotations, I agree, but if civil partnerships which are exactly the same as marriage from a legal standpoint are introduced, do you honestly think that they won't be seen as the same as marriage?

People who live together in cp's OR marriage will be treated the same as the rest of society.

I don't think you've read this thread well because if you had people have already pointed out the difference between PACS and marriage.

Put it this way, I am married. I married in a civil ceremony free of religion and fuss. If the govt. announced tomorrow that people who married in the same way as myself would now be known as civil partners and it was retrospective so that I would now be a 'civil partner' and not a 'wife', it would make absolutely no difference to me at all.

I'd still have to go through the rigmorale of a divorce (only it would be called a 'dissolution') and subject to same rules of divorce too. I'd still be treated the same as a 'wife' by financial and legal systems.

It would make no difference to my actual relationship, either- my relationship with my husband is what we make of it-good or bad- not what we call each other.

Scarlett, I feel exactly the same as you do - would absolutely love to have a CP ceremony (and party!) Names really do matter - not to everyone maybe, but that's why we need more than one system available! I still have a lot of hope that CPs for hetero couples and anyone else who wants them will be introduced. I never would have imagined the Tories would be so keen to extend marriage to gay couples (and about time too!) so hey, let's keep hoping!

Do you really think that the government should introduce FOUR different systems for people to legally pair up, i.e.:

marriage for heterosexuals
marriage for homosexuals
c.p.'s for heterosexuals
c.p.'s for homosexuals

that would all have exactly the same legal standing because some people have problems with the term 'wife' or 'husband'? . You really think that people's personal issues with these terms is enough to warrant a complete overhaul of marriage.
Not to mention the confusion it would cause?

You really think that this is a good use of the government's time?

I'm all for a PACS -type agreement, don't get me wrong, it seems fair enough. But to have civil partnerships for heterosexuals I don't get because legally they arethe same as marriage.

But a completely legally different set-up that is NOT legally akin to marriage? OK, fair enough to a PACS -type thing.

'You really think that people's personal issues with these terms is enough to warrant a complete overhaul of marriage'

I didn't say anything about overhauling marriage - people who are married or wish to be married should be allowed to carry on as they are. You don't care if you're a 'wife' or a 'partner' - bully for you, but some of us do.

JosieRosie, I've tried to find common ground with you here, I really have. If you want a PACS arrangement that would not legally be the same as marriage, I say fair enough to you. Campaign all you like. I'd be on your side.

Perhaps an agreement that gave you some rights without legally being same as marriage. OK, fair enough.

But really, as there is no legal difference between marriage and cp's as they stand in this country, every government with an iota of sense will turn around and say: 'just get married and call each other what you like for heaven's sake. Nobody gives a shit about what you call each other. You're still subject to the same rules in a cp as you are in a marriage. So who gives a ?'
Obviously, in much more polite terms.

I don't expect the government to waste its time just because of an irrational dislike of a word. Really, I don't.

It wouldn't be four systems, it would be two:
Marriage
CPs

'I've tried to find common ground with you here, I really have'

You SO have not I and several other people on this thread have tried to explain to you why CPs are important to us, and you have having none of it. The best thing for you to do wamster, is to make sure that you don't sign the Equal Love petition. Apart from that, just move on with your life. I'm genuinely glad that you're happy in your marriage. I think that is the only common ground you and I have!

I do appreciate your problems with the word 'marriage' , JosieRosie, and all the historical stuff. I really do. It's not enough to overhaul a system that already works, though.

That is, get involved in a system that is marriage, don't get involved or work it out yourself.

You cannot reasonably expect the law to change because some people have problems with history and words.

If we all had that attitude nothing would change, including things like women getting the vote

But there is no point changing this at all. Even the feminists here have said that. Apart from one or two people, nobody else seems to see the worth of civil partnerships for heterosexuals.

I do not understand why people cannot at least consider the fact that it is not the words marriage or wife that traps or belittles women (if marriage is seen as a negative thing, that is) it is what marriage does.

Marriage is the legal formalisation of a cohabiting relationship.

Civil partnerships are also the legal formalisation of a cohabiting relationship.

In very short space of time, civil partners will realise that the legal and financial systems treat them exactly the same as married people and that society sees them as being married, anyway, because most people are not hung up on the history of marriage. As far as they're concerned, people in a formal legal relationship are married.

Cohabiting couples are treated the same as married couples in a lot of areas. Why on earth should civil partners be treated any differently?

Society loves to 'couple' people up.

JosieRosie, Apart from 'history' and 'words' you've not given any other good reasons why you think civil partnerships should be available to heterosexuals.

heterosexuals have an existing legal arrangement they can chose.its called marriage

cp addressed that same sex couples had no such arrangement

now if the contention is what wife means in today society and to the individual ,well thats your individual issue to address.it doesn't need an additional extra layer of state intervention or a socially constructed arrangement to replicate marriage in all but name.because some dont want to be married or called wife. cp replicates marriage for same sex.heterosexual can get married

I completely fail to see the point of CP for heterosexuals too, I have heard gay people refer to their civil partners as husband or wife or saying they are married, because essentially they are. Unless it was to differ in legal standing from marriage or same sex CP then it is the same, surely? Just a different name. I don't oppose it as such, just think that there are far more important things for our government to be spending time and money on right now.

The business about husbands owning wives, well that is history, modern marriage is an equal partnership, the way I see it it is up to us as feminists and modern people to ensure that it remains that way, not perpetuate historical myths by avoiding it. No one has to be given away, change their name, use use any title or term that they don't want to, we are very fortunate to have all this freedom in our country, it is not so everywhere in the world.

If marriage is to be seen in a negative light, then I fail to see how civil partnerships can be seen in a positive light.

Marriage and civil partnerships are both state approved monogamy. Live with somebody and the government will give you a nice box to fit into.
That box for heterosexuals at present is marriage, if cp's come in for heterosexuals the 'box' will be civil partnerships-which will be subject to the same rules as marriage.
Peter Tatchell pointed out that the downside for gay people was that they would no longer be seen as individuals in their own right if civil partnerships came in, he was right- gay people are now seen as appendages of their partner when it comes to benefits system and some other areas.
I admire Tatchell a lot- he is a brave, decent man and he is nobody's fool so
I can't believe that he supports this cp campaign- I can only think that he is begrudgingly behind it- for he is (from what I have read) very anti-marriage/civil partnerships.
Has it never occurred to the pro- cp's for heterosexuals people that the government actively wants people to couple up so that they can save money?
Look at all the guilt and scorn that is poured upon single mothers!
If a person truly is anti-marriage, they don't have civil partnerships.

CP's are essentially 'same dress, different label'.

I don't think anybody should be fooled into thinking that they are some kind of brave, enlightened way forward.

To be honest, JosieRosie, if these cp's do come in for straight people and you have one, prepare to be disappointed when you find that society treats you exactly as if you had married. Because it will. It has to- there can be no unequal treatment of those in cp's those in marriages from a legal perspective.
As for the rest of society, heck, you're essentially married if you cohabit, anyway. Nobody distinguishes anymore. I've been called my dh's 'partner' a few times. If I can be asked, I correct people in a nice way ('actually, we're married') because I've got an irrational dislike of the word 'partner'!

'if these cp's do come in for straight people ...'

Wow wamster, I'm impressed! Just several million posts ago, you were absolutely adamant that CPS for heteros were some barking-mad pipe-dream that would never ever come true, now it sounds like you're entertaining the possibility. Us CP-promoting nutjobs must be working our magic on you!

They still are a barking mad pipe dream. The word 'if' is not meant to convey that I agree with it.
Why are you not arguing your case here, JosieRosie? Others-not just old antagonistic me- disagree with you about this.

History and how you feel about marriage is not enough to change the law, is it? You just sound spoiled as if you expect the world to revolve around how you feel about things. Even when there is no justifiable logic to change things because of 'unfairness'. There is no unfairness- cp's are same as marriage.

It's not as if you are arguing for CP's that would be legally different to marriage- which would be reasonable.
I believe Peter Tatchell has a system in mind that is very different to marriage legally. That's reasonable.

'Why are you not arguing your case here, JosieRosie?'

wamster, have you even read my last NINE MILLION posts on this thread? Unlike you, I'm perfectly ok with people disagreeing with me and don't feel the need to ram my arguments down people's throats all the live-long day. Honestly, I can't be arsed arguing with you any more. It's moved from pointless to irritating to plain old funny. I read somewhere that Christopher Plummer said working with Julie Andrews on The Sound of Music was 'like being hit over the head with a giant Valentine's card every day'. Well, talking to you on here is like being hit over the head repeatedly with the world's biggest marriage certificate. My head hurts now, I need a rest

Other than history of marriage and your dislike of the word 'wife', I see no other arguments from you.
I do, however, accept that none will be forthcoming and there is no point arguing further. About from a couple of people, nobody here agrees with you, though. Hope you realise that. To most people, it is a legal contract.