Congratulating women on getting married

[Margerykemp]

Everyone I know seems to be getting married at the moment.

I tend not to be invited to the actual event (another thread) but the inevitable Facebook status changes and everyone else 'likes' that.

For others I'm more in touch with via text I feel I should acknowledge it but...

All of this sits uncomfortably with me. I am becoming increasingly anti-marriage. My heart sinks every time I see a woman change her name lose her identity.

And why does it seem compulsory to make the big white dress photo as your profile pic? Strangely the grooms don't...

I'm such an old cynic- I just think to myself that half of them will divorce eventually.

I don't tell anyone this but I feel like I'm lying about my beliefs when I approve this oppressive patriarchal institution.

I think they would just think I'm bitter ( I've been in a ltr longer than most brides)

How do other feminists handle their friends weddings?

'not anyone here, but for example the sort of blokes who convince women they're just too cool and unconventional for stuff like that, then proceed to up and leave when they feel like it'

Very true LRD. I have read loads of threads on here where the OP and her bloke have been together for years, share a home, have children together but he says he's 'just not ready' for marriage Smells like BS to me. Obviously I understand being genuinely anti-marriage but if you have children, you need to speak to a solicitor to ensure you and your partner are protected if you split. I think blokes like this just don't want to be 'tied down' and obviously don't see a relationship and parenthood as that much of a commitment. Horrid.

Good points LRD. In France and New York (and no doubt many other countries) they now have a 'domestic partner' contract, which allows people to formalise their relationship in a legal sense without going through the hoopla/vows/patriarchal associations of marriage. I think this is long overdue here.

Totally agree MooncupGoddess. The Equal Love campaign has submitted a request to the European Court of Human Rights, asking to extend civil marriage to gay couples and civil partnership to hetero couples and they are pretty confident of the ruling going in their favour I completely agree that civil partnership should be available as an alternative to marriage, for everyone.

Well I do agree with marriage. But I respect the fact that a lot of people don't. And as for congratulating people well why not. No point in saying oh dear terribly sorry heard you got married how awful for you. It such a terrible institution and so many failures. As the person hopefully did want to get married and is looking forward to a happy life. . Same as if somebody marries somebody dreadful it's best not to say. Even though it might be hard!

Yes - but, given that civil partnerships are about to become gay marriage, does that get us any further? I'd like there to be legal differences between marriage and 'domestic partner' contracts (in France and NY the former has more provisions that the latter, as well as the assumption that marriage is for life, and it's much easier to dissolve domestic partner contracts).

My understanding is that gay marriage will be introduced in addition to gay CPs. Any couple who wishes to have their CP converted to marriage can apply to do so, but it won't happen automatically. So gay couples will have the option of marriage/CP/neither, hetero couples have only marriage/non-marriage. Hardly fair is it!

I hadn't realised that, Lotta, and yes it is ridiculous. Definitely an opportunity to reshape the whole system and give people of all sexualities an alternative to marriage.

I'm a feminist and I'm not a believer in marriage. I have a child with my partner, and we have an equal relationship in our own nuclear family. The legal stuff is sorted through wills and declarations. I work and earn about the same as my partner so no need to marry to protect my financial interests.

However, if I was a SAHM I would probably want to be married to protect myself. So I would only be getting married to protect myself in case of a relationship breakdown, and this seems so negative.

I don't think I do congratulate people. I've never really thought about it. I don't congratulate people on their birthdays but I am very happy to celebrate with them same for weddings really. I congratulate people on achievements - passing exams, driving tests, qualifications etc. But I don't see getting married as an achievement just as I wouldn't see a birthday as an achievement.

In what way would you want a civil partnership to be different to marriage?

Civil partnerships - no expectations of being together forever, no 'til death do us part', no patriarchal baggage (giving away the bride, dowries, diamond rings etc etc), no vows (you can just both show up and sign a bit of paper if you want, with a very brief spoken declaration which is so refreshing in its simplicity), no name changes (unless you really want to), no Mr and Mrs, no husband and wife (both are 'partner'), no expectations either within the couple or within society about the roles of either partner and most definitely no expectation for the relationship to be 'consummated'

What's not to love?

I agree with that, Waspie, and in my younger days I used to find it irritating to have to congratulate people on having babies ('FFS, it just proves they've had sex! Anyone can do that!').

I am a bit more laid back now, though I was annoyed a couple of years ago when I met up with friends for what I thought was a casual picnic and they announced they had recently got engaged, and whipped out the champagne so I could celebrate the happy occasion with them.

Agree with Lotta re the differences, and would add no automatic sharing of assets, and a much more straightforward dissolution process. The main legal aim of a civil partnership should be that each partner becomes the other's next of kin, and is entitled to spousal benefits like health insurance etc (obviously, more important in the US than here).

I'd be in favour of civil partnership - I might even consider it for myself. As Lottapianos and others have said, it's the patriarchal baggage that I most dislike about marriage. Actually, more about weddings than marriage.

Mooncup - agree. Although I'm slightly more impressed with babies now having had a crap pregnancy and a horrible birth experience - I practically demanded congratulations from anyone and everyone!

apologies not sure where that "actually more about weddings than marriage" came from. Trying to eat lunch and post is clearly taxing my brain.

I see civil partnership doing what it says - a legal, societal agreement to a partnership between two people for whatever [personal] reasons they have to want one.

About half of the things you listed there are optional in a "marriage" anyway Lotta, but I agree the other things sound good.

The question is why does there need to be two things? Why not have one thing that is the legal thing, then let anyone go off and make their promises in a sylvan glade or a catholic church or whatever they like, but on the understanding that only the legal part is legally binding?

Well it's nice to meet some like-minded CP fans on here! Google the 'Equal Love Campaign' if you're interested in finding out more. The current government are considering introducing gay marriage (a great thing) but have explicitly ruled out extending CPs to hetero couples. No idea why. The ECHR is due to rule on the Equal Love case, probably in 2014, and they will hopefully decide that anything less than marriage or CPs for all is discriminatory. So the government will be forced to open up CPs to all. They already have CPs in the Netherlands and France and about 65% of them are taken up by hetero couples - no reason to expect demand wouldn't be similar here.

The solution is to come of Facebook if it annoys you.

Otherwise congratulating people on getting engaged seems quite harmless.

Trills, I take your point about two systems possibly being excessive. The thing is though, some stuff about marriage, like consummation and promising to stay together forever, is really important to some people and if marriage is what they want, they should be able to have it IMHO. There are other people like lots of us on this thread who run a mile from all that stuff and don't think it's particularly healthy, but would still like to make a legal commitment to their partner.

Fully agree that the legal part should have to be carried out in a registry office/courthouse or whatever, and that any religious ceremony should be carried out separately.

some stuff about marriage, like consummation and promising to stay together forever, is really important to some people

And they can go promise that in whatever way they like, but not pretend that it's legally binding (because it's already not - if it was then divorce wouldn't be allowed)

Yeah, you're right trills. Can you imagine the uproar though if marriage were replaced with CPs? Some people are terribly invested in the status of being married - using Mrs, calling themselves husband/wife, changing their name, getting engaged first etc and I have no doubt that some people see CPs as a load of leftie, airy-fairy claptrap which is marriage-lite. Not the real thing at all doncha know

Daw brilliant post! Said it better than I could.

Only thing I want to add is OP should get out more. I am a feminist. I am married. I see no contradiction in this. The idea that marriage is still some patriarchal institution, and only that, is incredibly silly and frankly.. conventional.

If you would open your eyes, mind and possibly heart you might see that relationships between men and women have changed a bit lately (over the last few decades). Intelligent, accomplished women sometimes make the choice to marry a man they love and respect and hope to build a life with. Who are you to dump on this?

Once again we've got people suggesting that civil partnership is different from marriage, when legally they're exactly the same except for the name. If someone thinks a partnership is somehow less demanding than a marriage, they've invented that. Psychologically it might be true, but legally not.

And if a couple (or a trio? or a quad? or a rugby team?) signed a contract to live together under such and such terms, and then difficulties turned up, I suppose the courts would have to try and deal with it. That would be if the contract were found to be legally valid and I don't know what the requirements for that would be; I know you can't make yourself into a slave, or promise to commit a crime, but in general I think a contract can cover most activities.

But you could still call yourself Mrs and promise "til death do us part" if you wanted.

In fact I could call myself Mrs right now if I liked!

TeiTetua, I never said anything about CP being less 'demanding' than marriage. They're actually not completely the same legally, there are some differences in pension and inheritance rights, and married couples are actually better off in this respect. But broadly speaking, yes, the rights are similar.

bowerbird, I'm glad you're happily married, good for you. And I hear what you say about intelligent, accomplished women making a choice to marry someone they love and live together in happy, healthy, supportive relationships. Unfortunately there are also women and men who live in miserable, abusive, soul-destroying relationships and in my opinion and experience, marriage makes that situation harder to get out of, not easier.

Thanks bower!

lotta, yes, married people are better off in those respects legally, speaking as a recently ex-lawyer. I was going to say something to that effect to the poster who was unmarried but sure she had covered everything off legally, although I'm sure she knows how to take care of herself. Married people are usually better off tax-wise too, although this is obviously hardly a reason to marry.