Marriage...a relic of an age when women were property...?

Discuss

It can be something that is good for both parties.

and only when childbearing and childrearing are rewarded financially instead of being considered rather like a self indulgent hobby that silly women need time off work to play at.

Womens' unpaid work is the real work of the human race. That it is so looked down upon by employers and government is a measure of just how far feminism has to go in securing our rights.

:loveya:

There really is no need in this day and age since property, banking, healthcare, life insurance, etc., all require an individual signature. When is the last time anyone had to produce a marriage license? Even on tax forms, a spouse needs to list their individual SS number and sign.

And since it's been made painfully clear that our gay brothers and sisters will never be allowed to have their marriages recognized, I think we should get rid of it.
No more state-sanctioned marriages.
Civil Unions instead with equality for everyone.
If couples still want to marry "in the eyes of God" they can have that ceremony performed in their place of worship.

I hate being "married". It is not the choice of partner it is the way you are perceived after that fact.

That is the plan that I think could work and I wonder why it is not brought up more than it is?

Because it will loosen one more of the religious right's hold on government.
Many hetero couples in Vermont (where I'm from originally) are doing the CU thing instead of marriage. One couple said they had gay friends who couldn't marry so they refused to do so as well. It was awesome.

Right out there in front and I did not even think of it! Thank you.

Ilove what that couple did. I would love to be able to do the same but getting divorced is so difficult and I would imagine my husband would not appreciate it even if we did do a CU. He is less feminist than I would like but getting better as time passes.

I know there are enlightened men out there and I would love to be part of a couple again but I have trust issues.
Kiss your guy once for me, 'kay?

would again. Maybe just be a couple but I will never tie my life to a man again, that is for sure. No need really anymore to do it so why?

I will. :hug:

my feelings exactly! i actually CRINGE at the words "wife"/"Husband" these days! "hubby" from either gender makes me want to reach for the nearest blunt instrument!


ASIDE: :hi: musie. been meaning to PM, will try later today!

:pals:

Civil unions are the only thing that should be sanctioned by our government. "Marriage" is actually supposed to be performed in the eyes of God. Government has nothing to do w/ that(at least it shouldn't).
I have nothing against marriage. If someone chooses marriage than more power to them. Who am I to judge what they want and what they believe?

We need to kick the church out of our bedrooms once and for all.

.

forgot there was a difference for a minute there!
:P

box of worms, legally.

First, it's not a "civil union," except in the vernacular, when you participate in the ceremony at the courthouse. It's a marriage, just as it says on the license you're required to purchase. It has legal import.

The optional ceremony that takes place in a house of worship, performed by a member of some clergy, is not a marriage, but a "wedding". It has absolutely no legal standing. None. That's why all the campaigning by these moron clergy is so absurd - because you can go through all the ceremonies in a church that you want, but without marriage license you got at the courthouse, you're not legally married.

If you want to abolish the civil ceremony - that of marriage - you're also going to have to change all the laws requiring inheritance, property ownership, a thousand other matters that are geared towards legally married people. Most of this, is, of course, done on a state level.

Did you know that there is a form of real property ownership that is designated only for legally married couples? It's called "tenancy by the entirety," and it's a kind of joint tenancy, only with far better protection for both owners. It's not available in all states, but it's a real golden oldie.

Always remember that a legal marriage is nothing but a contract between the marrying parties and the State. That's all it is. Consider that most legal implications of the marriage are rights of survivorship (which can be handled quite readily in a lawyer's office by the diligent couple) and ownership. Of course, the SS survivor benefits don't attach. But, almost everything else can be taken care of legally, without a marriage license, a wedding ceremony, or the false illusion called "civil union."

In fact, there's no need for marriage anymore, and given that at least half of all marriage end in divorce, one must really consider why it even exists anymore. It's a quaint tradition, grounded in concepts that are no longer applicable.

And what I suspected after a little bit of research.

I grovel at the feet of the Learned One again!

When someone says to me, "They aren't married!," I sometimes have responded, "I don't care what their legal arrangements are." That's kind of compatible with what you are saying.

...... I believe there are still some states that recognize the antedeluvian concept of 'common-law marriage,' but I cannot - alas - be bothered to find out what they are.

You're right, though, about legal. You got it. Most people don't, but then, most people don't have a legal future so bright, I have to wear shades.

heh heh heh

Grovel back atcha.............

someone should start a thread in GD about this...facinating subject

I explained to my best friend that since she and her husband were married at the courthouse she had a civil union. She didn't follow at first until I explained the whole idea of how if the service was not performed "under the eyes of God" then it was not technically a marriage. She agreed with that idea and said the exact same thing that I have been talking about for a few years now-that all citizens should have the right to a civil union and that each church can then decide if it is a marriage. She now tells everyone that she has a civil union instead of a marriage and enjoys saying it-especially to her MIL (a fundie).

discuss it that is. Do you have anything you'd like to add to the conversation? What are your thoughts on the subject you started?

I thought it profound, and I told her so, but the thread just faded into the bit bucket. Some time after that, I saw a documentary about 19th century Russian "Intelligensia" revolutionaries who had what I believe was a Marxist theme and one of their goals was the abolition of marriage. It all started coming together for me. Then, when I saw how same-sex partners or others with non-traditional arrangements were being discriminated against in the whole "gay marriage/civil unions" political story, I had an epiphany that maybe marriage was something that I had only assumed as a necessary state. Maybe marriage ought to be scrutinized.

I am not abreast of the latest or even the history of feminism. The ERA surged then sputtered in my teen or college years and those news events were about the extent of my exposure to the issues. There's a lot to know. So, thank you for asking. You can tell me what you think, too.

I was married in September.

We were both very happy that we live in the only state in country that currently recognizes gay marriage and it's something we discussed considerably before finalizing our plans. It's not that we're gay and wouldn't have been able to, it's that it didn't seem right that we were excited about doing something that some of our family and friends would never be allowed to do. When the ruling came, we felt at least some relief. (Admittedly we realize that it's opportunistic of us and does little more than assuage our guilt.)

I have met with some really bizarre and unexpected resistance to the fact that I did not change my name. We have maintained our own finances although we have plans for a joint account. We bucked tradition by flying off to a small island alone for the ceremony - just us. (And an officiant, and two hired witnesses.) I was never the kind of girl who dreamed about my wedding as a child and never thought I couldn't be happy or fulfilled without a husband (never thought of it as a "necessary state"). We will not have children.

As a result, I have given a lot of thought (and come up with no answers) to what makes our relationship different now than before we were married. The whole history of it is so paternalistic that I wonder what it all means. And then emotion enters the room.

I adore my husband. There is something very basic and secure to me in making a vow to be committed to his welfare for the rest of my life. I admit to being very happily "married". However, if we look at the details, I think what we have really is more of a civil union than a "marriage" in the traditional sense. Bit convoluted, sorry, but you did ask. ;-) Thanks for answering, and thanks for asking.

Kudos to you in your husband for being so thoughtful in all aspects of yours and for showing respect to others in your community.

I've no plans to marry anytime soon, and no steady partner to consider it with but if I were, the name change thing would be an issue. I'm 36 years old and cannot see myself changing my name at this point in my life. I'm seeing a lot of newly married women keeping their names, probably for the same reason since people are marrying later in life now. Contrary to what the anti-feminists believe, not everything we do is a big symbolic rebellion against the patriarchy. A lot of women are probably keeping their names these days because it's simply more practical for them to do so and institutions and bureaucracies will have to change to accomodate it. That's how most entrenched institutions change.

Economics and practicalities cause people to re-configure their arrangements. That's one reason the anti-feminists amaze me with their fervent desire to return society to some mythical 1950s Utopia. Do they not realize that it's impossible, even if everyone wanted to do it? It would require doing away with every technological advancement made in the last 50 years and totally dismantling our current economic base. Marriage is evolving because it has to in order to fit peoples' lives.

I did the first time, I didn't the second. Happily, the man I found the 2nd time around was something of a feminist himself, or at least highly educable. And we were SO much in love. Oh my! :blush:

Anyway, as the wedding date approached I had to tell him that I wasn't sure I could change my name, and also wasn't sure I could wear a wedding ring. I thought about the name thing long and hard when I was going thru my divorce, actually. I would have LOVED my own name, but there was NO NAME I could pick (aside from a made-up one, which was an option that didn't feel right to me) that didn't belong to some man first and foremost, before it was bestowed on the woman, either as child or in marriage. I came sorta close to adopting my maternal grandmother's maiden name, but decided in the final analysis that it was just so much simpler to keep the name I had. I'd certainly grown out of MY maiden name and didn't feel like that person any more -- and had issues with taking my father's name back anyway, and I had a son whom I didn't want to have the hassle of having different name from him while he was in school, and I already had a bit of credit established in that current name. So I just kept it.

Fast forward to my upcoming 2nd marriage, about 5 years later. Fiance responded, "But, honey. Doesn't changing your name signify the start of a whole new life?"

"Why yes, it does, as a matter of fact," I responded. "So what are you going to change your name to?"

Stopped him cold in his tracks and I never heard another word about it. We did explore hyphenated last names, but I never did like that as a solution, and our combined names were -- funky, and awkward too.

So, I kept my 1st married name and chose to wear a wedding ring. I came to realize that it is a symbol -- a circle, never ending, made of precious metal -- of undying love and devotion. I ended up appreciating that.

I also came to deeply appreciate something else -- the wedding ceremony. We did our own, btw, and the minister liked it so much he asked if he could share a copy with other couples. Anyway, we knew the depth of our commitment to one another and did NOT feel we needed some "official" sanctioning by any church, by God (or whomever), or even the state. It was as sacred as it was going to get WITHOUT any of that.

However, there is something to be said for bringing the people you love and care for, and who love and care for you, together to witness your commitment, experience your joy and celebrate with you. As someone who not only believes but has experienced the "presence" of those who have gone before us in THIS world, I know that our loved ones who've made the transition come back at key moments of this type -- births, weddings, deaths and funerals. They're here to lend support and aid, and their love. For weddings and births, to celebrate with us as well. A wedding ceremony brings all that together and is a joyous event.

BUT, it isn't necessary, and I heartily support the right of ANY woman -- or couple actually -- to forego all that.

Because the state's involvement in such things is most definitely a holdover from attitudes and practices about women as chattel, AND to control women's sexuality. After all, in a society where women and children are property and property is IMPORTANT, you can't have women going around giving birth to little people whose lineage isn't known. You just can't! :sarcasm:

I don't think of the wedding ceremony in the same way at all -- I could be wrong, but I think celebrations of more or less permanent mating partners have been happening the world over for a very, very long time. In any case, I think it serves a valuable function in the community which is life-supporting and -enhancing, and thus not inherently sexist.

When gay marriage became "legal" in Massachusetts, you and your mate were relieved that you could proceed with marriage. At that time you decided to marry.

That's a great story. Now I have something to ponder. I am glad to hear things are going well.

I mean, it wasn't the reason we decided to marry each other, but it was one of the reasons we moved along with the actual process.

We were engaged before it became legal but hadn't set any plans until after it became legal because we were aware of the fact that others didn't have the same right. We were in fact debating between a "marriage" and a "civil union" but since we got married out of the states, it's pretty much a civil union anyway.

This probably sounds puffed up or something but it's not meant that way. We do have family and friends who should/would get married except that being gay, they can't. It is personal to us and we saw the hypocrisy of saying we support them but then turning around and doing something they don't have a right to do.

Like I said, we know it's kind of an opportunistic way to make ourselves just feel less guilty of taking part in something others across the country still can't but at least now we can invite our gay friends and family to move here if they want to get married. (And in fact, at least two couples are considering it. :-))

There was some amount of coincidence involved.
I gotta run--meeting tonight! :)

the official cloak of prostitution, and it was abolished in the USSR immediately after the revolution although Stalin reitroduced it. What frustrates me about marriage is the way society ostracises those who don't want to partake... one of my teachers in 6th form lived with his now wife for a number of years before they finally got married when the social pressure around them got unbearable. Neither of them wanted to but they felt there was no choice.

as for marriage and societal pressure... in Germany it's the opposite... very few bother with marriage, and many don't bother having children. The German government has all kinds of incentives to get German people to breed. :)

do and no other reason to consider marriage as a form of commitment that could benefit me: Yup. What the author of this thread said. And even if I had any of those other factors in play, it's not a form of commitment that can work for me. Because: What the author of this thread entitled this thread.

Married once and doubt I'd ever do it again...least not in the way it currently is. I really think the idea of civil unions is great.

You promise with your heart anyway, not your property...least it should be that way...and the legal stuff would be taken care of with a civil union, right?

I'm so glad people choose to write thier own vows too. I think that is cool. I did that back in 1970 when I got married...but then I never was your typical kinda gal. LOL

nt

but I can understand why you would... I will teach my daughter that she can get married, or not get married, or have children, or not have children, or go to outer space, or stick straws up her nose--anything she wants, lol.

Marriage does differ a lot across time and place, but the concept is not totally a disadvantage to women. Even now, women tend to earn less income than men and in the past that was more true if the woman even worked at all. Without some kind of legal or other socially sanctioned relationship, the woman and any small children could expect a good deal of hardship if the man decided to get rid of her or died. Current marriage laws provide protection for both partners in a variety of situations. Socially, people still tend to have more respect for married relationships as opposed to non marriage relationships.
I think that regardless of what you call marriage, doesn't really change it.
I'm married, but I don't know if the "ideal marriage" relationshp where two become one is really a good thing to strive for. I do think that it is the best relationship arrangement if the couple has or plans to have children. It still is good for many legal protections too.

toward a state in which mothers and children can be protected legally with or without a marriage between mother and father.

To me, the most important value, historically speaking, of marriage is to protect children financially in the event their parents separate (which, of course, happens with both married and unmarried couples). I think people should think very hard about their level of commitment to a relationship before having children as a couple.

However, financially speaking, a well-functioning child support system combined with a reasonable social safety net would go a long way toward preventing children from being thrown into povery if their parents separate.

I have a number of relatives in Scandinavia, and many of the younger couples (including those with children) there are unmarried. It's never easy when a couple splits up (children just create an enormous amount of work, not to mention expense!), but, based on my small sample, the number of separations is not that great, and even the single moms seem to do OK financially.

I do think, though, that there is something to be said for insisting a man commit (whatever that means) "for better for worse" rather than feeling he can toss you out when you reach 40 or whatever (but then I've been watching "Henry VIII" on Masterpiece Theatre!).

I swore I would never marry. In fact I didn't until I was 33 despite having 2 children. Got two more (stepchildren) out of it.

Looking back, I think I just wanted to try it out. However, I don't think it's necessary,-- and the whole wedding ritual, (white dress flowers, bridesmaids all that)IS a holdover from older times when women were property. Marriage an antiquated custom that probably gets in the way of social evolution.
I ahem, did NOT wear white. Point of honor.

I remember reading old Sci-Fi, when I was younger that had temporary marriage contracts. Like for five years or so. I thought that was neat at the time

I see young--and some not so young women "planning" their weddings, seemingly falling into the old stereotype of scheming bride and nervous bridegroom. Shades of "catching" a man. Not overtly, but I feel it sometimes. I was listening to some young women last night complaining about the difficulty of finding "a good guy"

Not in every case of course, I know a few men who were deeply involved in their wedding ritual, added male flavor and essence. (I avoid weddings like the plague but I hear the ones where men participate more make a more interesting wedding sometimes)
The idea of monogamy appeals to me personally but this is after experience, trial and error.
I married more for my husband than myself, and I would marry him again. He needed the ritual way more than I did on a emotional level.

If I ever lose him (he's ill) I would never marry again. Not from grieving. There is no reason for it. None at all.

And yet, barring marriage from those who believe in it, and want to marry but can't because of bullshit homophobic laws makes me want to defend marriage. And stangle a few homophobes that think they have the right to inflict so much pain on other human beings.
Aww. Just musings.