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 ?

Has it? I’d be up for a civil partnership, just not a wedding.

So now there are two parallel ways of doing the same thing. When the government get round to sorting out the legalities, I wonder what the difference will be?

I’d be up for a civil partnership, just not a wedding.

I got married in a registry office, we didn't have a wedding.

I've noticed that when couple get a civil partnership, they often have a party afterwards. How is that different to a wedding?

There are some very old fashioned views about marriage here. It used to be a patriarchal institution (like practically everything else) but now it’s just legal protection. I didn’t change my name, my children have my last name.

Fine if you want to pay a lawyer much more to get the same protection in several convoluted parts instead, but that does seem rather silly. No one else will give a shit at the end of the day and it’s your money to spend as you wish.

How is that different to a wedding?

Well it’s not a wedding. We wouldn’t be married and wouldn’t have a party. I spoke to DP and he’d be up for a civil partnership too, to cover us legally. Neither of us want to get married, so it would be ideal.

So the government has to do SOMETHING about it

I thought the ruling said that the government won't be expected to change the law. I'm not sure where that leaves anyone.

Well it’s not a wedding. We wouldn’t be married and wouldn’t have a party. I spoke to DP and he’d be up for a civil partnership too, to cover us legally. Neither of us want to get married, so it would be ideal.

That's absolutely fine, you get what you want just like we did. But once the civil partnership is open to mixed sex couples I can't see what the difference will be,

Marriage = go to registry office > make declaration > sign register > have optional party

Civil partnership = go to registry office > make declaration > sign register > have optional party

My question is, if both procedures give exactly the same equal rights to both partners, what is the difference between them?

Glad I agree completely. This is what I was saying in my previous posts.

We didn't have a wedding either. There is no difference at all between our marriage and a civil partnership if it offers all the same legal and financial protections. I don't get it, to be honest.

If you were to refuse to participate in anything that had ever been sexist, you wouldn't vote, go to school, go to university, have a job, etc. etc.

My question is, if both procedures give exactly the same equal rights to both partners, what is the difference between them?

Well the wording is different and for me marriage and being a wife has negative connotations so it’s ideal. It refers to “partners in law” rather than husband and wife.

Well I'm sorry if you think that being called a wife has negative connotations. I certainly don't think so and I'm sure that many others don't think so either.

But it will be up to the goivernment to decide how to proceed with two parallel institutions. Perhaps one common certificate with

[partners in law / husband & wife] strike out as appropriate

would do the job?

@GladAllOver I didn’t say it had negative connotations for anyone else? Why are you twisting what I’m saying?

It’s ironic isn’t it, that you’re utterly intolerant of my stand point because you’re so sure you’re right. Why does my life affect you? Why do my choices bother you?

Because I don’t care if someone is married, changes their name or not, wants to be a wife or doesn’t.

You’re quite sure that your way is the only way.

But it’s not.

Maybe understand that other people aren’t the same as you and try to accept that instead of badgering on and on?

Now you can have a civil partnership (see today's news).

I quite clearly said “for me being marriage and being a wife has negative connotations”, FOR ME.

Why you couldn’t understand that and chose to read it as a slight is beyond me and ridiculous

Marriage, not being marriage.

Sorry, you've done that bit.

My question is, if both procedures give exactly the same equal rights to both partners, what is the difference between them?

The legal differences are largely technical: a marriage is formed by the ceremony, a civil partnership is formed by signing the register; adultery is grounds for divorce, but not for dissolution of a civil partnership.

The real differences are in how people feel about them.

Now you can have a civil partnership (see today's news).

No, you can't. They've only ruled that it's discriminatory. The government now need to decide on how to act upon that ruling so they are no longer being discriminatory, and that could very well go in the direction of no civil partnerships for anyone.

I'm with you on that Sodding. There are very few people on this thread who seem to get this. I don't want to be a wife or married so if a civil partnership becomes available then that is what I will do. I do understand what others are saying about CP being constructed as something for gay people and therefor excluding them from marriage so will have to have a think on that.

All I want is to be next of kin and to be exempt from inheritance tax, my partnership has been a long and strong one (like Andrex ). We don't want to get married. Despite everyone saying that nobody needs to know etc I WILL KNOW. Thanks for the debate though, I am still quite surprised that most people are so happy with the institution to be honest

@LemonJ you’ve put it far more articulately than I managed! That’s exactly it, the legal side. Not the marriage ceremony, which frankly I’ve done before and in my case (not slating anyone else who is married) it meant the square root of fuck all. All that ring and piece of paper meant was he could batter me without comeback (or so he thought).

So aye, I want the legal side with none of the connotations of marriage. If I die suddenly, DP will be financially OK (I own all the big assets outright) and if he does I will be entitled to his pension. But I won’t be a wife, I won’t “belong” to him. We just won’t be up shit creek if the worst happens.

I think it’s batshit that we still live in a world where women (if they want financial protection in the event of a split) are forced into an institution deeply rooted in misogyny.

Giving away? Property of one man passing to the other.

Changing of names? Ditto.

Flowers? Women smell.

All of it is archaic but we’ve been conditioned to believe it isn’t.

That said, if anyone chooses to do it, that’s up to them, whatever reason they do it for.

It’s just not for me.

Also - DH and I got married after realising just how up a creek I'd be should anything happen to him, and how he wouldn't be eligible for any sort of bereavement allowance/widowed parent allowance should I die while still a SAHM. I was very glad we decided to just do it when he was unexpectedly and extremely suddenly rushed to hospital at 35 years old, in otherwise perfect health, with a suspected heart attack 8 months and 3 days after we got married.

Yes, it would be good for some sort of new/third option to be available to all couples without the baggage of marriage or civil partnerships (which, let's not forget, were a consolation prize for same sex couples to continue their "other-ing"). But that doesn't exist yet, and I'll be damned if I make life more difficult than it has to be for DH/the DC by not being married while waiting on that day coming.

I think it’s batshit that we still live in a world where women (if they want financial protection in the event of a split) are forced into an institution deeply rooted in misogyny.

OK, as explained above, schools, universities, workplaces, the voting system, are all rooted in misogynist traditions. But like marriage, have changed.

I would still like someone to explain how a marriage that does NONE of the things you list below (nor any of the others linked to patriarchy) is sexist. Like, how does it actually perpetuate or support the patriarchy in any real way?

Simply saying "Because it's called marriage" is not enough - there is literally no substance to that. I don't believe that my husband and I 'belong' to each other, we didn't before we were married and we don't now either. We just have some legal and financial protections that we previously didn't

Giving away? Property of one man passing to the other.

Agreed this is misogynist. So we didn't do it.

Changing of names? Ditto.

Agreed this is misogynist. So we didn't do it.

Flowers? Women smell.

Sceptical of your reasoning, but nonetheless, it's part of the whole stereotypical sexist marriage - hence, we didn't do it.

All of it is archaic but we’ve been conditioned to believe it isn’t.

That conditioning obviously didn't work on me as I've never believed for a moment that any of those things are anything BUT archaic and sexist.

I'd still love it if someone could explain how a marriage that does not employ ANY of the sexist traditions can still be truthfully characterised as patriarchal?

I discovered that the institution of marriage is less of a fixed thing than I’d initially realised, when I started reading about it(ie in medieval times for ordinary people marriage only required the consent of both spouses, no church, no priest, no need for anyone else there, just a spoken agreement to be wed. By Victorian times this had totally changed.)

I absolutely appreciate your arguments, but if you end up ‘having’ to marry for financial reasons maybe it’s worth remembering that the institution is redefined by each generation, and certainly within your relationship you get to not only define what marriage means and what your roles as spouses are, but to model that to others.

Or you could have a registry wedding with witnesses off the street as a purely legal thing and not tell anybody, but I suspect you might feel uncomfortable with that.

Good luck deciding what to do.

why brides carry flowers

Just because you didn’t know doesn’t mean you need to patronise me. Do some research first.

I’m not particularly inclined to respond to your tone, so I won’t.

You do what you do. I’ll do what I do. There you go, everyone’s happy. Its like I’ve got free will, how wonderful!

You can just go to a registry office and get married. No ceremony, no wedding. You literally repeat a few words and sign. That is it. Takes a maximum of 5 minutes.

Or you could have a registry wedding with witnesses off the street as a purely legal thing and not tell anybody, but I suspect you might feel uncomfortable with that.

I like your ideas, but you’re right, I’d still be uncomfortable with that. I don’t need the financial protection, in the event of a CP his pension would be beneficial but not needed iyswim? It’s more to cover him than anything, because he won’t let me add his name to the deeds of the house (my Mum’s legacy paid it off) despite him paying all the bills currently, and if I died I’m not sure what would happen. Although my dad would ensure it passed to DP and the kids.

Having been an abused battered wife, I have no desire to be a wife again. XH used that word to control me and spat it at me as an insult and a way to control me. So I’ll never be a wife again. That’s not a reflection on DP, he’s nothing like XH, it’s how the word makes me feel.

Like I said, nothing wrong with getting married if you want to. But the posters sneering, patronising and having a go at me have no place to be doing so. Solely because I choose not to do things the way they did.

You literally repeat a few words and sign

It’s the words which matter.