I don't want to get married!

[lemonJ]

I have been told that I am stupid not to get married to my long term partner of 20 years. We are very happy and have three lovely kids.

I have never wanted to get married, I think the whole institution of marriage is archaic and fills me with misery. Giving women away, giving up our name not to mention the ridiculous ceremonies and the cost and stress people feel the need to put themselves through for his day. When is it going to become a thing of the past? It makes me think of wives serving their husbands in the 50s.

Our house is worth more money than when we bought it and I understand that if we get bloody married we will be exempt from paying inheritance tax if one of us dies. I suppose we should then but I do not want to as a political point. Bloody load of old shit. What should I do ?

exactly - legally you just declare you are free to marry, state your name and who you want to form your contract with and have with a couple of witnesses, just as you do with a passport form or will.

Been with my SO for 16 years. Don't want to get married because whatever anyone says you end up being husband and wife. I don't want a husband and I don't want to be a wife. Also there is no escaping its roots whilst various religions either forbid it for same-sex couples or place restrictions round it. It's an institution I don't want to be part of. Delighted that others do and I'm always happy when friends wed and have even shed the odd tear but that's all. Funnily enough my mother told me never to get married so that could be one reason why it's never been a goal.

I would have a civil partnership for legal reasons and to express commitment but of course can't at the moment. Would also consider a humanist ceremony but, unlike Scotland, these are not legally valid in England

As it happens, my OH of 15 years and I paid a solicitor friend, who specialises in private/family law, to go through our affairs and ensure that house/pensions/life insurance/rights of attorney etc were tied up for us, but even at 'mates' rates', it was bloody expensive. It would only cost about £100 to do the whole thing at a registry office.

Presumably your solicitor friend pointed out all the legal and financial ramifications that can't be substituted no matter how much expensive paperwork you do?

@Hulo

I don't want a husband and I don't want to be a wife

THIS.

@GorgonLondon

We're Scottish, and under Scots law, you can qualify more or less everything applicable to married couples by arrangement. It's just considerably more expensive and complicated.

Thistle regardless of whether you're in England, Wales or Scotland, you're not entitled to bereavement benefits if your partner dies and you're not married.

I don't get it, I really don't. I hate all of the trappings of marriage. I didn't have a wedding, I'm not Mrs, I didn't change my name, I don't wear a ring. It cost us almost nothing. Most people don't know we got married.

But why go to all the additional expense and hassle to get a less-good and very complicated legal substitute for marriage when you can get the real deal without needing to buy into any of the surrounding crap?

Marriage is a legal partnership, with benefits and drawbacks. If I was going into business with someone, and that business relied on both of us to succeed, I would look at the legal situation should one of us become ill, die or choose to leave the business.

For the majority of women with children getting married is the sensible legal protection for them. I'm now divorced. I realised when that happened that If i were to die my dc would have the added trauma of losing their home as well as their df as we live in the SE and it would have to be sold to pay inheritance tax. If we had not been married and he had died then I might also have had to sell the house.

If you have looked at your legal position and made arrangements to ensure you are legally ok should your partner die or leave then it's not a problem to stay unmarried. For most women marriage is the better legal option.

The Supreme Court are ruling this Wednesday on extending civil partnerships to opposite sex couples so fingers crossed!

Can I clarify something, for people who want civil partnership- is it just the name that you object to? I.e. Do you want the exact same legal rights of marriage in civil partnerships, or are there specific rights and obligations you want removed.

Because if the former, I don't see why a court would decide to let two identical institutions stand with just a different name. If the latter, I'd be curious to know which rights/obligations you'd do without.

All the patriarchal trappings of marriage I can think of are not to do with the actual contract but the social practices surrounding them. I got married without the dress, name change, being Mrs etc. For me, actually, I like the fact that my feminist union is entirely legally equal to that of my most traditional relatives who got married in church, and in a way I think It's important people who do have a sentimental interest in 'marriage' know that they can do it without any of those trappings. I get that people may not agree. But I'm much more concerned with the fact women in long term relationships are still doing most of the emotional work, housework, facing a pay gap and in many cases having no legal protections while SAHM because they ARENT married than I am about whether we have a different name for an identical legal construct.

All the unequal marriages I know would be just as unequal if they were called civil partnership. And a number of the very committed loving relationships I'm aware of where people haven't got married are ultimately leaving one partner exposed in a way I don't think can be justified by concern about a name.

@GorgonLondon

'Bereavement benefits' - as per the tax-free lump sum of around £2k that bereaved partners are eligible to, in some (very limited) circumstances? Apologies if I'm wrong, I've based this assumption on a limited Google search.

With all due respect, my OH and I are high earners with substantial pensions, life insurance and savings, and at the risk of sounding overly smug and privileged, £2k of government money is neither here nor there to either of us, to be honest. I'd rather it went to somebody who would actually need it.

We're also in our late 30s, so hopefully we've got a few years left in us - but equally, if our natural lifespan allows, I very much doubt state pensions or similar will exist when one or t'other of us pops off.

As for this:

But why go to all the additional expense and hassle to get a less-good and very complicated legal substitute for marriage when you can get the real deal without needing to buy into any of the surrounding crap?

Because as I and other PPs have mentioned, I/we DON'T WANT TO GET MARRIED. That's it. It's not a club I want to be part of. However, I do want to ensure that my financial assets are taken care of and that I have a named advocate should my health be affected.

I appreciate that you are happily married and had none of the so-called 'trappings' in doing so, but I must say, reading your responses to other posters, you do seem very defensive of what is historically a patriarchal institution on a feminist board.

Sorry I don’t see your view of marriage. It’s a legal document you sign. You are confusing it with a wedding. I didn’t change my name. I refused to be called Mrs because I think it is stupid and sexist. I don’t have a wedding ring. We went to the registry in normal clothes with my parents. That’s it.

IMHO you are confusing the two things.

1991. It was only 27 years ago the rape was recognized as a crime that could take place in a marriage in the UK. Marriage has been around for centuries as a way for males to take ownership of females, to exploit their physical, reproductive, emotional, and domestic labor. It is entirely reasonable to object to marriage.

Feminists also had to fight to get the legal protections marriage now provides a woman and her children.

Why should we have to buy in to an inherently sexist institution, just to get basic legal protections?

'you do seem very defensive of what is historically a patriarchal institution on a feminist board.'

There's a lot of it about

ThistleAmore - I was also in my late 30s with a high-earning DH, who died suddenly at age 41 (we hoped we had more than a few years left to us at that stage too).

We were not in the UK at the time so I was not eligible for bereavement benefit or the widowed parent's allowance (which at the time continued throughout childhood, but has since been cut to one year), so those things were not relevant.

However, the spousal exemption on inheritance tax was highly relevant and has made a huge different to how I and the DCs have been able to live since DH died. That is not something that can be magicked up with private legal agreements.

Why should we have to buy in to an inherently sexist institution, just to get basic legal protections?

I deny absolutely that the contract I entered into at the registry office is in any way 'sexist'.
It gave us both equal rights in law, which is why we signed it.

I empathise absolutely, Lemon
I wanted no part of the Wife/Husband labelling and all the historical baggage that went with it.

I had been with my partner for 17 years when it became an issue. We'd spent the wedding money on a house deposit and called the day we moved in "our anniversary." Then his work changed their pension rules so that while spouses definitely have rights to pensions should the employee die, they could "consider the employees wishes" about partners but weren't guaranteed to pay out.

He has a fabulous pension. I have no pension, was a SAHM and then self-employed but not above subsistence level.

We decided no matter what my feminist feelings about the patriarchal roots of marriage, it wouldn't be smart to put myself and the children at financial risk, so we popped down to the registry office with 2 pals and did the deed.

I'm still Ms Me, he's still Mr Him, our kids are still Him-Me hyphenates who will keep or discard any surnames as they see fit. I still say Partner rather than Husband/Wife. We've been together 31 years so far.

If you want the legal protection, take it on the chin and do the deed. If you don't, I completely understand and agree, but the world is what it is, and we make our choices from those options available to us.

Here is something I don't understand about the patriarchal institution comments. I attended an Oxbridge college that previously didn't allow female members - not in the distant past, but until the early 1980s.

I work as a manager in a sector where traditionally senior management have been male, even though the majority of employees are female.

I have fought for changes from inside institutions that more or less reflect the patriarchy of the world around them: some have had structural patriarchy inherent in their rules and practices, others have just had a culture that needs to change. I don't see anything structurally patriarchal in the marriage contract as it currently stands, obviously there is lots still there in the cultural practices that surround it.

But why, given we fight to change other institutions and cultural practices from the inside, and indeed fight for inclusion in areas that have excluded women, is marriage still something so many people believe can never get over its historical roots? If you don't want to be married because you don't want that particular form of contract, that's fine - as has been said earlier, there are many reasons why people want a loving committed relationship without those legal ties, be they a complicated second marriage with children involved, very unequal assets in a later marriage, etc etc. Once everyone is very clear on that going in and fair then there's no issue with that.

But the idea that by renaming marriage civil partnership we somehow expunge the fact that for several hundred years intimate relationships between men and women have reflected the unequal and patriarchal society we live in just doesn't make sense to me. (And, unless I'm wrong, it does tend to be in male-female relationships the majority of objections occur, I know a number of gay and lesbian couples who have been overjoyed to get married and don't feel the historical issues apply to their union).

If there are specific parts of the marriage contract people would like to remove, fair enough. But there are solid reasons for having a legal contract. I don't actually agree with the people saying suck it up and grin and bear it: I actually feel like it is another area where feminism needs to actively reclaim a previously damaged institution and remove the cultural baggage. I have an equal marriage, and an equal relationship, and I don't see anything anymore patriarchal about the fact that it used to be used to discriminate against women than the fact I went to a university that used to discriminate against women (where I helped work on campaigns that improved female students access to contraception) and in a workplace where senior management are still predominantly male (where I am part of women's leadership groups, mentorship programmes and a senior female manager).

I get it completely, OP, and feel the same way. My partner and I have been together 26 years, joint mortgage, two kids, pets, yadda yadda. We've always earned similar amounts, have wills, have pensions that pay out to the other, etc.

This thread has made me think that we should look into other ramifications of not being married, though, especially health-related things as we get older.

Why should we have to buy in to an inherently sexist institution, just to get basic legal protections?

I thought that it was generally agreed (on this forum no less), that marriage was in general a good thing for women.
I think the protection does favour the more vulnerable partner, which is usually women. This is why some wealthier men are reluctant to marry.
And as we've seen on this thread, some wealthy women e.g. with inheritance, reluctant to marry.
As other have said, you can get the protection that marriage offers (a legal contract) without marriage - just go to a lawyer and have them sort it (a legal contract).

reddressblueshoes If there are specific parts of the marriage contract people would like to remove, fair enough. But there are solid reasons for having a legal contract. I don't actually agree with the people saying suck it up and grin and bear it: I actually feel like it is another area where feminism needs to actively reclaim a previously damaged institution and remove the cultural baggage. I have an equal marriage, and an equal relationship, and I don't see anything anymore patriarchal about the fact that it used to be used to discriminate against women than the fact I went to a university that used to discriminate against women

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

In my previous relationship (10+ years cohabiting and monogamous) we didn't get married because we had no kids and no assets. There was no reason to get married other than the social, show-offy aspects that I find totally repellent.

In this relationship, we got married after having two children and buying a property together. I see it as a much less real and significant commitment than either of those things; however, it gives real financial and legal protections to both of us and to our children.

I refuse to accept that there is anything patriarchal about our marriage when I have not taken on a single one of the commonly accepted sexist aspects of it (name changing, white dress, using 'Mrs', wearing rings, being given away etc. etc.) and it only has advantages for me and our children.

It's appalling that marital rape was legal until 1991 and that gay people couldn't get married or have civil partnerships in the past. I wouldn't have got married if those things were still true - but they are not.

I understand the idea of not wanting any legal commitment or any official ties to someone. What i don't really understand - and I say this as someone who feels extremely strongly about feminist issues - is the value of having something called 'civil partnership' that is a legal union identical in all respects to 'marriage', except the name.

'Marriage' has changed a lot over the years, just like universities, workplaces, etc. have done, and there is nothing intrinsically patriarchal about it.

'Marriage' has changed a lot over the years, just like universities, workplaces, etc. have done, and there is nothing intrinsically patriarchal about it.

There is nothing intrinsically sexist about it either. Those days are fortunately past.

Would you refuse to vote because that was once sexist too?

Together 23 years, 2 teenage DS, not married. Don't intend to be :)

Together 23 years, 2 teenage DS, not married. Don't intend to be

And that’s fine. But when the chips are down, don’t complain that the law didn’t offer you protection. It did, you just choose to reject that offer.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are you overestimating the extent to which people really care?
I've got a friend who complains bitterly that women are pressured to have kids. Until recently, though, I was in the same demographic as her - woman with no kids, at risk of getting past it - and though mum and dad had said they'd like me to have a baby, I really didn't feel like I was beset by pressure from all sides to do so. So it seemed strange to me that that's how she sees things.

Likewise, I just don't think it's the done thing to harangue people for Living in Sin these days. I'm not saying nobody's ever said anything to you, because they have - I just wonder whether you might be blowing up a few people's rather arrogant comments into something that you need to get cross about, when, really, you could save yourself the angst and just ignore them.

The ban on opposite sex civil partnerships has just been ruled discriminatory by the Supreme Court. Good news. So the government has to do SOMETHING about it. Extending civil partnership to all would be the fair and sensible thing so fingers crossed