On Marriage: I welcome discussion
Jan. 19th, 2008 05:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ailbheI'm pulling this one out for further discussion. I'm particularly interested in the views of people who thought marriage was meaningless, or that it's just unfair because of hetersexual privilege, childrearing privs, etc. I mean, obviously it *is* unfair, but I'm interested in other people's views.
Are you happy that you married Rob?
Depends on what you mean by married. I'm happy we are committed life partners. I'm delighted we're co-parents. I'm thrilled we plan holidays and DIY and grocery shopping and menus together. I'm pleased some of our friends and family came to celebrate our relationship and offer support for our commitment. I'm ambivalent about the legal and social status the legal ceremony gave our relationship. It was originally because of child guardianship laws - only a man (not necessarily the father) married to a woman at the time of birth got automatic next of kin type rights. That law changed I think while I was pregnant, so I felt dreadful. Then civil partnerships showed up and I felt a bit better. It's complicated.
Are you happy that you married Rob?
Depends on what you mean by married. I'm happy we are committed life partners. I'm delighted we're co-parents. I'm thrilled we plan holidays and DIY and grocery shopping and menus together. I'm pleased some of our friends and family came to celebrate our relationship and offer support for our commitment. I'm ambivalent about the legal and social status the legal ceremony gave our relationship. It was originally because of child guardianship laws - only a man (not necessarily the father) married to a woman at the time of birth got automatic next of kin type rights. That law changed I think while I was pregnant, so I felt dreadful. Then civil partnerships showed up and I felt a bit better. It's complicated.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-19 10:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-19 10:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-19 10:53 pm (UTC)British civil partnership is designed to give the same rights and responsibilities as civil marriage, and you can't have one if you're already party to the other. I understand opposite-sex couples not wanting to use the word marriage, and same-sex couples wanting to use the word marriage, but it does seem superfluous to me to create a new legal institution that's basically identical to an existing one, but with a different name.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-20 04:48 am (UTC)It is superfluous, and there is no major legal difference between civil marriage and civil partnership, just a historical one. Civil partnerships were introduced in 2002 when a same-sex couple sued for the right be legally recognized as partners, claiming discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and won. Civil unions were created to allow same sex partners to have the same legal rights and benefits as (opposite-sex) married couples. However, the civil partnership was made open to opposite-sex couple as well, and was quite popular among people who were against "marriage" because of religious connotations, or for other reasons. Then, in 2004, civil marriage was opened up to same-sex couples, when it had previously only been available to opposite-sex couples (again as a result of a law suit brought against the government, claiming discrimination). Since civil partnerships were still very popular, they were kept as an option, rather than going through the mess of changing the laws yet again :)