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?

Actually LottaPianos did say 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'.

That actually sounds like "less demanding" to me, but absolutely none of it is required with marriage! You can go to your local Town Hall with your two best friends and your opposite-sex partner, and come out married if you want to, and many people do marry that way--or get civilly partnered, if they're a same-sex couple. If people see things through prejudiced eyes, that's their baggage rather than any sort of requirement.

I'd like to hear why anyone wants to make an issue out of what the relationship/contract is called, and what different expectations they would have from one versus the other. Because if people are making an issue of who's allowed to be "married" versus "in a civil partnership" they ought to be able to explain what they want that they currently can't have.

I have a fundamental dislike of marriage because of it's historical and religious roots. Strangely I am not atheist so it's more to do with the women and children as property. In the past church missionaries tried to convert isolated tribes to Christianity, when they failed they concluded it was because these tribes people were too egalitarian! Some ideas put forward to try and make people more susceptible to monogamy and marriage was to create competition between men for resources, introduce a little inequality and you have the makings of marriage.

I am not married and never will I be, DP would love to marry, I have told him to start looking for a wife before he loses all his hair

Can't you just deal with the relationship not the marriage? Wish them many happy years together or something. Makes no reference to marriage at all.

I would like to see marriage for both gay and straight couples - I don't like that people who want to call themselves married, or to whom the religious aspect is important, have different status under law. One way to sort things out would be to say all religious ceremonies must be separate from the law, for a start.

It'd be nice to have legal protection like you describe, mooncup, too.

I agree that it's a bit silly to have two institutions, one called marriage and the other civil partnership, but conferring identical benefits.

Here are the links to the details French and New York institutions I mentioned earlier, as compared to marriage. The French one covers more than the New York one, which enables next of kin protection but not inheritance benefits or sharing of assets.

www.le-pacs.fr/comparatif-pacs-mariage.html

www.cityclerk.nyc.gov/html/marriage/domestic_partnership_reg.shtml

It would be interesting to hear from posters in serious but not married relationships which sort of model they'd prefer.

LRD I think it's only in Christianity. If you are Jewish and you marry in a synagogue you still have to marry in a registry office, or at least you have to register the marriage. Same for Hindu and Islamic ceremonies, I think.

It's not even that, mini. It's the C of E, and possibly Catholic churches? It's certainly not all Christian churches (I know, my wedding was Christian but I had to have the legal registry office version beforehand).

So it's only C of E and possibly Catholic. I have always thought that it discriminates against other faiths, even more so then.

As of the 1753 Marriage Act, marriage in the UK was only valid if performed by the Church of England (or Church of Wales/Scotland/Ireland). I assume Catholics became entitled to perform legal marriage ceremonies after Catholic emancipation in the 1820s. Civil marriage was then made legal in 1836 (according to Wikipeda) but presumably they didn't extend the privilege of enacting a legal marriage ceremony to other religions or Christian sects. I am really surprised no one has campaigned for this since!

Yes, that's true, it does discriminate.

I suppose that because the C of E has been our state religion for so long, we're used to think of 'marriage' as potentially both a legal and a religious thing.

I mind about 'marriage' being available for both gay and straight people, because I hate that nit-picky 'oh, X and X aren't married, they're in a civil partnership' crap. I also think that if the law were changed, perhaps some religious groups that are havering at the moment would change too - and this stuff matters for people who are religious.

These redefinitions of marriage are why I find it difficult to understand being totally 'anti-marriage' on principle (and I don't mean that in the sense of knocking it, I mean I don't understand).

I have just had a quick read, I wouldn't personally go in for either. I consider myself to be an individual (living with DP for 14 years) and I have no desire to make a claim on what is his and he feels the same. Also I think because I am anti personal property I think we only create institutions and arrangements so we can deal with existing laws. What if there were other ways in which peoples rights could be protected? What if rights were based on something other than just property.

What rights would you like to protect, then, Mini? Sounds like you don't need an institution at all, and there's nothing wrong with that!

Thank you mooncup that makes sense of that anomaly. It's interesting how close state and church have been. Why so close? Maybe because both have benefited men. I read a great book about women in medieval Europe (can't remember the author) it seemed that only religious women were free from the expectation of marriage and motherhood. Women went into the male dominated church to avoid.......well, men.

In answer to Mooncup - the only things I want that marriage confers that I can't do anything about at present are the IHT benefits that DawEtoHaul alludes to above, and the right for my partner to receive the spousal part of my pension should I die.

I am allowed to be his partner on his company pension but my company will only pay it to married or CP'ed couples. Rather discriminatory in my opinion.

I also want to be able to protect my assets on entering a partnership (some form of legally binding pre-nup I guess).

I would also want any partnership agreement to be wholly secular.

I'm married, but only because I met a truly amazing man that I couldn't quite bare not to be married to. It was a tough decision for me, I have very ambivalent feelings about the institution, but the alternative was unthinkable.

I didn't change my name and since it's a completely equal partnership, I don't feel like I've compromised my feminist credentials one bit.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the big white frock, or the use of picture of woman in same as Facebook profile pic, but each to her own. I didn't even change my Facebook status when I did the deed, so I don't think everyone makes such a song and dance about it.

OP if you're not comfortable with what your friends have done and you're a true friend of theirs I'd wish them all the best. Marriage at times can be hard work and they'll need all the support they can get when times get tough. If they do turn out to be one of the unlucky half that are heading for a nasty divorce (and there's no other type if you ask me) then you can be there for them when it all falls apart. If not and they're happy, what's not to like?

If these marrying women aren't friends of yours, say nowt.

SOmeone beat me to posting that only Christian marriage ceremonies are legally binding (ie, Jewish, SIkh, Muslim ones etc aren't) and remove the need for a register office trip. I trained as a BHA celebrant and some BHA members wanted humanist weddings to be as legally binding as Christian ones; I prefer the idea that everyone has to go and do the legal bit with the registrar and then go and have whatever ceremony you like.
But then I'm also in favour of people being able to register group marriages if they want to. The legal aspects of marriage (protection of children,rights over the home etc) should be extended to anyone who wants them. There is no good reason to forbid people from entering into group marriages, after all (and don't waste my time with any waa, waa, but they might go wrong. Heteromonogamous marriages go wrong an awful lot of the time but no one advocates forbidding them on those grounds.)

mini - true about the medieval church, but I think Church and State are particularly close in the UK because of Henry VIII setting himself up as head of the Church as well as head of State. And that in itself was to do with some pretty misogynistic and marriage-related bullshit, too!

Group marriage........would you propose an upper limit?

who gets to put the bins out ?

Whoever puts the bins out, AF, you can be sure that the issue will be discussed at length, in an open and honest way, with all potential problems and pitfalls thrashed out in advance to ensure that everyone involved is happy with the situation :)

one would hope so

or more realistically, the lazy ones will duck out of it just like in every other kind of partnership

I think humans have been divorced or alienated from their true nature through advances in law, state, private property and technology. Perhaps I'm deluded, maybe there will always be lazy selfish men people. Why are people not falling over themselves to wish others well, be that in marriage or in crossing the road. Why do we need to establish complex rules and laws about everything from divorce to who puts the bins out I have read many posts on here from women saying they would advocate for some sort of contract before marriage that would cover everything, down to who cooks and who loads the washing machine, quite honestly why would you even consider spending your life with someone unless you were certain they would always, with out fail consider you and play fair.

I wasn't thinking only the men would be inconsiderate sods in a group marriage situation

I know some tremendously lazy and selfish women

AF: I expect some groups would have rotas, some groups would squabble about it a lot, some would allow people to trade off the jobs they hated for other favours.... just like heteromonogamous couples might do.

yep, like I said, I would expect a group situation would simply mean more people to argue about who has to clean the bog