#21

That dude really doesn’t want to marry his girlfriend!

2 Likes
#22

It’s not nebulous though is it? The history of marriage, what the roots of it are and what its stated purpose was is very clear and defined.

Although I think it has evolved sufficiently to, in my view, fit the modern world to mine (and my wife’s) satisfaction. My query I guess is why the above point about the ‘institution of marriage’ trumps all other concerns for this couple. I find it a bit strange all in.

#23

Guilty lol. There’s actually another article in today’s Guardian (can’t be arsed to find it) written by someone supportive of their case and he does actually end it by expressing something like that sentiment, or at least the awareness that that might be lurking in the background.

#24

They seem to have gone to an awful lot of trouble, time and probably expense just to try and get some different words on a piece of paper that essentially mean the same thing.

1 Like
#25

“Do I!”

3 Likes
#26

Exactly. It’s changed for most people. So if it hasn’t changed enough for this couple why are they getting ‘partnered up’. How does changing the name of it change what it inherently is.

#27

What are the real benefits of marriage / civil partnership anyway? Visa shit? Inheritance? Tax breaks?

Are there any good reasons for keeping marriage / civil partnerships as legally distinct unions at all?

#28

What irks me about all this is the assertion that civil partnerships were introduced as some sort of enlightened new process for those that reject the patriarchal history of marriage, rather than as a cop-out to keep gay people quiet.

CPs should be phased out. Marriage should be shorn of all its potentially problematic connotations. And those two should get down a registry office and have a bare minimum hitching.

1 Like
#29

Would there be any way of them altering the patriarchal implications of marriage that they don’t like, much in the same way same-sex couples have changed marriage to include their relationships within it? Is the concept of marriage flexible enough?

#30

Could go nuclear and abolish marriage but keep civil partnerships.

That’d be cool.

1 Like
#31

would really annoy tories so I’m all for it

#32

You’re missing the rest of my post/point. It’s not that I don’t think there aren’t negative historical connotations I just don’t see how changing the name therefore removes those if they’re such a big issue for this couple when most modern couples accept that those connotations are historical and don’t apply in a modern marriage.

#33

Why keep any legal union?

#34

Yeah why the fuck not.

#35

Alright Thatcher.

#36

Having done it myself, I saw nothing the actual act of a) getting and b) being married (after we’d written our own vows and arranged the ceremony the way we wanted it, which we were more than able to do) which was patriarchal. Don’t think my wife did either.

Only thing I would change is that on the marriage certificate they ask you to write what your father’s profession is. That’s fucking odd and that should be sacked off.

#37

Well most couples (at least at the weddings I go to) still keep all/most of the old patriarchal traditions of the ceremony, if not the marriage itself.

If you’re going to strip all of those aspects out of it, it doesn’t seem that extreme to go one step further and say that “marriage” itself carries negative connotations to you, and that you don’t want to enter into it.

#38

Is this going to turn into a re-hash of that 400 post bore-fest from the old boards?

1 Like
#39

That seems fair enough. I just thought that they would be better directing their energy in changing the bits of marriage they weren’t keen on, rather than copping out of it completely, as the definition of marriage has evolved a lot over time.

#40

This question comes up in the Netherlands every now and then: civil partnership was introduced in 1998, gay marriage in 2001. When last debated in parliament, it was quickly established that almost all political parties were against abolishing civil partnerships. The main arguments were that abolishing would limit choice, almost force people to get married, and keeping both options would encourage couples to consider their joint legal arrangements.