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 ?

That isn't true deydo.

A wife could be beaten and raped until not that long ago because she was a wife.

And until recently a man could be jailed for sex with another man. Fortunately in the 21st century we have moved on and done away with outmoded thinking about relationships.
I'm quite content to be called a wife. I retain my birth name (not 'maiden name' please) and that's as far as any 'sexism' goes. We are equal partners in law and in life.

That isn't true deydo.

What bit isn't true?
"Wife" is from the old english for "woman".

It only has the same negative connotations as woman has.

This bit. for the reasons I have mentioned. I'm not bothered about getting in an argument about it though.

I don't want to argue either, I just see it as strange that people will avoid using "lady" because of it's historical roots, despite modern usage being a synonym for woman, yet also dislike "wife" because of it's modern usage, despite it's original meaning being woman.

I don't want to be a wife or married so if a civil partnership becomes available then that is what I will do...All I want is to be next of kin and to be exempt from inheritance tax...Despite everyone saying that nobody needs to know etc I WILL KNOW.

I feel exactly the same way, OP, and have been tutted at on here before for not just sucking it up and marrying my DP to secure my (or his) share of the house etc. I do understand that being financially perilous doesn't make sense; but I just object to the fact that in the 21st century our society and law still finds one form of relationship more worthy of protection than others.

Also, and this is possibly the biggest thing for me, DP and I wouldn't want anyone to know; but even at a tiny wedding we'd need witnesses and I don't want to ask someone I know to be a witness and then keep their mouth shut about it for ever. Not wanting to get married is my and DP's position and I don't find it fair to think that we'd have to implicate (for want of a better word) other people.

You can just ask some strangers Nikita if no registry office staff are free. Or ask on mumsnet

It's not that one type of relationship is considered more worthy- everyone has the choice to opt in or opt out of those legal and financial ties / commitments.

Thank God that people in same sex relationships can finally have these protections too. They suffered real hardship for years with no possibility of having their relationship formally recognized and protected.

They were disinherited, denied widows pension, not allowed into hospital rooms on deathbeds etc. Appalling.

For heterosexual couples to complain when we have the choice to formalise or not seems a bit unnecessary to me.

@GladAllOver as recently as 1992?

The Oxford dictionary definition of wife.

I’m absolutely thrilled that same sex couples have the ability to get married/formalise their relationship legally it should have happened long before it did.

It may seem unnecessary to you, but to other people there are personal and valid reasons for preferring another option.

What bothers you about that dictionary definition sodding?

I presume the definition of husband would be exactly the same, mutatis mutandus

I am, genuinely, sorry you had a shitty experience but it doesn't translate to meaning that there is anything inherently abusive or misogynist about marriage.

I was also in a long term (10yrs+) cohabiting relationship where he was violent, abusive and controlling towards me. We weren't married. That doesn't mean I assume that all unmarried partnerships are violent and abusive.

Actually husband originated from master of the house.

Anyway it’s all got a bit mixed up so I’m out.

The institution of marriage is based in and is inherently sexist. If you choose to marry that’s up to you, however you do it. But to pretend it isn’t rooted in misogyny is just not true.

Again, I’m sorry you had a bad experience. But being married to mine meant getting free was a lot harder and a hell of a lot more complicated.

I don’t judge anyone who chooses to marry that’s their choice. But when they judge my choices and reasoning I’ll defend them.

Have a good evening all.

It’s 1.1 in the definition of wife that pisses me off, being defined by your husband. Just to answer your original question.

It's not that one type of relationship is considered more worthy- everyone has the choice to opt in or opt out of those legal and financial ties / commitments

But marriage automatically confers things like next of kin, skipping inheritance tax etc. Of course it's considered more worthy.

You missed my point Nikita. People in same sex relationships used to legitimately br able to say that their relationship was considered less worthy because they didn't have the choice to have those legal protections if they wanted them and they couldn't get widows pension, life insurance etc.

You don't have that problem- that very real problem. If you want those protections and that legal recognition, you can have it in a couple of weeks for a couple of hundred quid.

If you prefer not to then you don't have to
It doesn't make any difference to how you view your own relationship.

Sodding at the risk of repeating myself, I respect your personal feelings and reasons, but I don't accept that marriage is inherently sexist just because you keep stating that it is, without being able to back that up with any argument

I agree completely that it's harder to extricate yourself from a legally formalized relationship and I was very glad not to have
Married my ex for that reason

However, that would apply equally to civil partnerships. That's the difference between choosing to formalize , or not, a relationship. Not the difference between CP and marriage.

That has nothing to do with the original roots of marriage- c.f. earlier discussion about voting, education etc.

It also has nothing to do with the optional , sexist trappings of marriage (dresses rings etc)

P.s. just looked at that definition you posted. Original meaning of husband was not master of the house. It was 'tiller of the soil'. Do you think that means that all married men are considered to be,in some sense, inherently farmers?

Glad to see that the Oxford definition of wife includes archaic. Twice.

The generally accepted meanings of wife and husband in 2018 are certainly ones of inequality.

The institution of marriage is based in and is inherently sexist. In your opinion, which I suggest is also archaic.
There is nothing in the registry office ceremony to perpetuate that long outdated view.

Whoops!
The generally accepted meanings of wife and husband in 2018 are certainly NOT ones of inequality.

I hope that was obvious from the context!

Long term living together instead of marriage is a bit like being a self employed contractor rather than signing a permanent job contract. You have more autonomy but no sick pay, HR support or redundancy if things get tricky.

Some people prefer to be their own boss and some prefer the security of employment. We need to be able to make a choice.

Gladallover there is the small aspect that mothers are not recorded on marriage certificates where fathers are. Granted that isn't part of the ceremony, rather it's the resulting documentation.

That's my point sodding (although you've left the thread).
Look at the Oxford dictionary definition of "lady" and it seems fine - "A polite or formal way of referring to a woman." is the main definition.
Yet people on here hate it in general because of the archaic origins.
So why ignore the modern definition of "lady" in favour of the archaic origins, yet ignore the archaic origins of "wife" in favour of the modern?

Lotta, the Supreme Court ruling is very exciting, isn't it? I think the government will have to do something about getting it into legislation now. just hope neither I nor DP go under a bus before they do

Nikita

Fingers crossed for a long, happy, civilly partnered life for both of us!