Closest thing to "civil partnership" for couple who are not same-sex.

missbiggles1

HanSpan wrote: »

If I could bann all the partiarchal traditions from all marriages and totally disassiciate them from the giving or selling of a woman from one man to another I wouldn't mind, but as long as the norm is for a woman to give up her name, be given away by one man to another, wear virginal white etc etc then I will never be comfortable with it.
I want the legal protections afforded to couples who marry for me and the man I have lived with for 25 years, yet I really don't want to take part in something I find so uncomfortable.

You seem to have fallen asleep and woken up in the 1950s.

gettingtheresometime

HanSpan wrote: »

If I could bann all the partiarchal traditions from all marriages and totally disassiciate them from the giving or selling of a woman from one man to another I wouldn't mind, but as long as the norm is for a woman to give up her name, be given away by one man to another, wear virginal white etc etc then I will never be comfortable with it.
I want the legal protections afforded to couples who marry for me and the man I have lived with for 25 years, yet I really don't want to take part in something I find so uncomfortable.

To be honest I think you're being over dramatic ...these days a wedding is exactly what ever you want....have you never seen don't tell the bride??

HanSpan

pigpen wrote: »

As a recent thread showed in SOME circles this is the norm.. in many others it is not and it is an option, as is making a double-barrel surname.. it is not compulsory. Some occupations, such as medicine ban you from practising under anything other than your birth name. It is increasingly common amongst the younger generation to keep their maiden name upon marriage and in some countries there isn't even the option to change it at all!

It is wholly feasible that a couple could waltz off into the sunset just the 2, get married with 2 unknown witnesses and no one would ever know! .. That is what I would do if it was up to me the thought of the fuss really puts me off.

None of the pomp and ceremony are necessary if all you want is legal protection.

If I do it that is exactly what I will do! I know not everyone now changes their name, or wears white, or is given away, and that I think most men now wear a ring where it was traditionally just women (which seemed to me like a sign of ownership). However the fact that so many do and have for so long makes the whole thing something I don't feel comfortable with. When people think of marriage they still think of all those things, and as long as that is so I don't want to be a part of it.

HanSpan

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

To be honest I think you're being over dramatic ...these days a wedding is exactly what ever you want....have you never seen don't tell the bride??

I have purely tried to explain why I am not comfortable with the idea of being married - I am not overly dramatic I just have feelings you don't share. I cannot really understand why people who are happy with the idea of marriage get so het up about people who aren't. I don't have any issue with what others choose to do, and actually I love a good wedding, I just don't want one myself!

Yes I've seen that and in fact that holds up the traditions generally - the man chooses a white dress for his bride and a traditional wedding and has her walked down the aisle and she usually changes her name, so not at all an advert for changes to the status quo apart from the arranging it part.

CharlieRabbit01

HanSpan wrote: »

If I could bann all the partiarchal traditions from all marriages and totally disassiciate them from the giving or selling of a woman from one man to another I wouldn't mind, but as long as the norm is for a woman to give up her name, be given away by one man to another, wear virginal white etc etc then I will never be comfortable with it.
I want the legal protections afforded to couples who marry for me and the man I have lived with for 25 years, yet I really don't want to take part in something I find so uncomfortable.

I'm not sure I understand your argument.

Yes most marriages are the "traditional" sort, white dress, given away by father change name etc etc.

But you don't have to do that, if you choose a RO wedding or like I did got married in a hotel, you can wear what you want, walk yourself down the aisle, not exchange rings, not change your name, sign the certificate without your fathers name on it, then your legally married, all the legal benefits none of the tradition.

The only exception to "do what you want" is the few legal words that you have to say.

What point are you trying to make?

HanSpan

Person_one wrote: »

It doesn't mean that at all, it means you have chosen not to avail yourselves of those legal rights even though you are free to. It seems a tad petulant to be honest, when same sex couples were genuinely, truly denied those rights until so recently, to complain that you just don't like the title!

Marriage these days is good for women, its a completely different beast than the patriarchal institution it was, its mostly gender neutral, certainly on the important stuff.

I would never have argued for heterosexual civil partnerships before same sex couples were given the right to marry, but now they are I do not see it as petulant wanting to be allowed a civil partnership.
Yes legally marriage is broadly gender neutral legally, but the traditions are still there and give me the heebiegeebies. No-one has to agree with me but its not likely I'm going to be talked out of those feelings after 30 or so years!

CharlieRabbit01

HanSpan wrote: »

If I do it that is exactly what I will do! I know not everyone now changes their name, or wears white, or is given away, and that I think most men now wear a ring where it was traditionally just women (which seemed to me like a sign of ownership). However the fact that so many do and have for so long makes the whole thing something I don't feel comfortable with. When people think of marriage they still think of all those things, and as long as that is so I don't want to be a part of it.

So you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

By not getting married because you don't like tradition some how means you've got the upper hand?

You want toe legal benefits of marriage so get married, do it your way and ignore the traditions.

Its only you thats getting stressed about traditions no one else.

onlyroz

HanSpan wrote: »

If I could bann all the partiarchal traditions from all marriages and totally disassiciate them from the giving or selling of a woman from one man to another I wouldn't mind, but as long as the norm is for a woman to give up her name, be given away by one man to another, wear virginal white etc etc then I will never be comfortable with it.
I want the legal protections afforded to couples who marry for me and the man I have lived with for 25 years, yet I really don't want to take part in something I find so uncomfortable.

You don't have to do any of those things and many couples don't. Why not book a simple registry office wedding with a handful of witnesses. No need to make a song and dance, and no need to do any of the "traditions" you're not comfortable with.

Just because an institution is associated with certain things in its past, it doesn't mean that the whole thing should be scrapped. It's great that things like the concept of marriage evolves with the times. What you're saying is akin to saying "I don't want to be British because the British Empire used to endorse slavery".

Person_one

HanSpan wrote: »

If I could bann all the partiarchal traditions from all marriages and totally disassiciate them from the giving or selling of a woman from one man to another I wouldn't mind, but as long as the norm is for a woman to give up her name, be given away by one man to another, wear virginal white etc etc then I will never be comfortable with it.
I want the legal protections afforded to couples who marry for me and the man I have lived with for 25 years, yet I really don't want to take part in something I find so uncomfortable.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.

Yes, most couples still go for the daft traditions and the fluff, but I know and know of plenty of women who have had low key civil marriage ceremonies without their father giving them away, worn lovely non-white outfits, kept their names, never worn an engagement ring, continue to use Ms rather than Mrs and now have all the legal benefits of a formal partnership and no loss of 'feminist credentials' at all, if that's what you're really bothered about.

Marriage is a powerful legal contract with many benefits for committed couples. The peripheral stuff is entirely up to you.

HanSpan

pigpen wrote: »

well the same sex couples do!!


What tradition applied to marriage?? What aspects do you find uncomfortable? (I need to ask my OH this question too so your answer may be really helpful)

Civil partnerships do not have the same financial benefits which are also what you specified. They are also not recognised in civilised countries where same sex marriage is legal which means if you went there and one was taken ill the other would not automatically be classed as next of kin or able to make decisions regarding the others care.

Some same sex couples do, not all, there are still plenty that choose a civil parnership over marriage.

As to the traditions I have waffled elsewhere but I think creased-leach said it most succinctly.
I fully understand that lots of people *want* the white wedding and the giving away and the name change, that is all part of it for them. For me it is all those things, and the fact they are still seen as the norm, that makes me not want to be part of it. I do get that its hard for people who are perfectly fine with it all to understand how I feel, but that doesn't change the way I feel - I just accept I'm in the minority.

Civil partnerships have exactly the same legal & financial standing in this country as marriage which is the important part for me.
If one of us were taken ill abroad there's certainly no-oe else to speak for me so they would have to take what he said! And his mother is his only relative and she would tell them to listen to me I'm sure so that is a moot point.