(no subject)

[naath]

Lets be constructive!

What do I need to do to have the best chance of convincing the nice A&E doctors that they really want to call ewx and not my parents when they scrape me off the wheels of a bus? Please don't suggest marriage, I'm aware that's an option already and dismiss it for other reasons.

What do I need to do to persuade the nice doctors that I really don't want them to go to every length possible to squeeze out another painful month of life for me? I guess that *at the time* I'm not likely to look like a mentally competent person but I'm pretty sure I am *now*.

If I pay a lawyer money to arrange these things does it all turn out to be an expensive waste of time when someone decides that because I don't want what they want?

Comments

[antinomy.livejournal.com]

This it seems to me is one of these classic situations when one would like civil partnerships to be available to opposite-sex couples, no? Otherwise, nothing really to add, the other advice all seems very sensible, but at the end of the day I'm not sure there are any legally robust ways of ensuring your parents can't wade in if they want to :(

[naath.livejournal.com]

Yes! Civil partnership! Which apparently "there is no demand for". ahahahaha.

[lnr]

That's one of the reasons I strongly support the Equal Love campaign, even though it's not something *I* want I do think both same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships should be available to those who do. Sadly I think you're right that we're not going to get it any time soon!

Hell, we're not even going to get religious same-sex marriage for those churches who *want* to do it :/

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

I'm genuinely somewhat confused by the desire for opposite-sex civil partnership, since there's nearly no legal difference in the UK to civil marriage, and only disadvantages outside the UK.

My guess would be that it's a desire to avoid cultural baggage that other people might associate with marriage? Possibly some sort of solidarity with same-sex civil partners (though surely that's better fixed by same-sex marriage)? Is there something else I'm missing?

(From my point of view; other people can think what they like, I know what marriage means to me.)

[naath.livejournal.com]

For me it's about the cultural baggage. I don't want to be forced in to an institution I don't want to be a part of as the only way to access things like "the right to decide who is my next of kin for myself"; ideally I think these things should be available pick-and-mix (a lot of the things that used to be tied to marriage are - like giving the father of a child parental rights).

I don't have an opinion about what any of this ought to mean to anyone else really.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Which bits of cultural baggage would you cut out? I am also interested in the ideas around this.

[naath.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I want to cut them from marriage; maybe it's good that "marriage" is a word for that and "civil partnership" is a word for this other thing... dunno. Don't want to impose my views on others any more than I want theirs imposed on me.

I do know people who are married but who have chucked a lot of the baggage things; and I admire the fighting the system from within thing, not sure I want to do it myself though.

The sorts of things I'm thinking for:

Marriage is forever - it's not, because divorce is totally legal even just "because I want one" - but admitting at the start that it's "until we don't like each other any more" is unusual.

Marriage means children, and living together, and sharing a name, and sharing all your stuff in common, and oh, all sorts of things.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Sorry, yes: I meant what bits of cultural baggage would you cut out from marriage to produce the thing that you personally would prefer, rather than from all marriage. Like where you make an identical copy of an image before you do stuff to it. But you cleverly divined my meaning from my foolish wording and answered the question I actually meant to say!

So...the legal framework of marriage doesn't contain those things any more as essential parts, they are just things people go on about as if they were. So couldn't you just do the legal part of it one day without the giant ceremony and songs about making babies and making people buy things for your house and all that palaver? And then refer to each other as words that aren't "husband" and "wife" and basically be the same as you were before except for having achieved the legal next of kin thing? Or are there family-related things that mean this would be actually nearly impossible?

[naath.livejournal.com]

Well, changing the ceremony is pretty easy so long as you don't let your mother know... (if you are me). But you are going to want to tell people you are married so they can give you the stuff you wanted; if you never tell anyone then when you get sick and Bob shows up and says "she's my wife" but Jane shows up and says "she's my daughter, and furthermore isn't married" you might have a bit of a problem.

And of course you can tell everyone that you are married and when they ask things like "when are you having babies" you can say things like "never". And if you get divorced non-acrimoniously you can tell all your friends "oh, we just felt it was for the best; I'm pretty happy now". But some people will just assume things, and not ask about them; or assume you don't mean what you say... I mean, people assume stuff about people who are shacking up too; which is sometimes in my favour and sometimes not, but often uncomfortable because when you realise someone has assumed an un-true thing well now you have to decide whether to out yourself or go along with the lie.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see. Thanks for patiently explaining!

[naath.livejournal.com]

Heh, explaining things is fun.

[sidheag.livejournal.com]

If Bob has a copy of your marriage certificate in his wallet, there probably isn't the kind of trouble that's going to stop your wishes being requested, is there? FWIW, I don't know whether you know, but we got married after, um, 18 or so years of being an unmarried couple, in a register office, with only the two witnesses required to make it legal. And then went out for a nice lunch with them. I was impressed at how very minimalist the ceremony was: it really was basically just "do you wish to be known as married in the eyes of the law, and do you declare that you are legally allowed to marry one another, e.g. not married to other people already? Yes? Right, you're married then." We didn't make a "we're married" announcement, and most people who know us have been told that we aren't at some point in the earlier 18 years; occasionally, it comes up in conversation and people are surprised that we are. We told our parents some months later. The only really objectionable reaction I remember was from my shrink who insisted on congratulating me and not believing me that it didn't make the relationship feel any different! In our case, the motivation was that we were ttc, and wanted J to get full parental rights, which at that time didn't seem to be easy to ensure otherwise (and seemed likely to be more expensive than getting married!)

[naath.livejournal.com]

The parental rights thing has been changed AIUI from someone else in a similar position (but I've not really looked into it 'cos of not wanting children myself).

I guess one could carry around the marriage cert. although I don't tend to like carrying around important documents (and I wouldn't run for the important documents on the way to the ambulance either).

I also think that I, personally, would quite like a great big PARTY to celebrate our wonderful us-ness; parties are great. Excuses to spend enormous amounts of money on amazing dresses and fab cakes are great. :-p I just don't think that making a daft dress and buying an awesome cake makes my relationship any more valid. So no party for me. Well, no wedding party for me. I make awesome dresses anyway.

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

Some friends had a "10 years of living in sin" party; where they invited a large group of family and friends to a formal dinner and drinks. It was quite nearly a wedding reception without a wedding ceremony.

[enismirdal.livejournal.com]

I have found this thread really interesting and I like your ideas about marriage v. civil partnerships. I feel much the same way about liking the idea of civil partnerships being available to any couple regardless of their gender and sex and whatever. It comes with sort of...no a priori expectations apart from "these two people love each other and desire to be together". None of the general societal expectations of white meringue dresses, expensive presents, massive receptions, babies, etc. so any given couple can make of it what they will.

I also like the pragmatic approach to "forever" and actually admitting at the outset that not all partnerships can or indeed should last and that can be OK as long as it's handled in the best way possible for all parties. (I guess especially where children aren't and won't be involved so it's less complicated.) I suppose that's why pre-nuptial agreements are getting gradually more common as well, and I suppose by and large it's good, as long as it doesn't put people off the idea of trying to work for a relationship that is viable with some effort but might be having a difficult time right now.

[sonicdrift.livejournal.com]

I think you'll find as civil partnerships and marriage are legally equivalent that opposite sex civil partnerships will just get you all the questions about kids, money etc. but with an added 'So why did you just get married then?" tagged on the end, as there's no real difference but the name. It probably not going to get you any advantage over being married other than the chance to pointedly correct people that you're civil partnered, not married.

If there's going to be a new marriage-like thing, merging civil partnerships into civil marriage and introducing something new that actually gives people a choice seems a much better idea. Some kind of marriage-lite perhaps with the whole next of kin thing but without the financial stuff?

[lnr]

For some people the baggage that comes with "marriage" is too much, even though they're in a relationship that would benefit from the rights that come with either marriage or civil partnership within the UK. I respect that, even though it doesn't apply to me (I'm with you on that one).

You might find more info here:

http://equallove.org.uk/

The news articles page has most info by the look of it, though nothing very recent.

[liv]

I would have liked an opposite sex CP, if that had been an option; since it wasn't, I decided to go ahead and get married anyway, rather than waiting until the indefinite time when my preferred option might exist. In fact, if I had my druthers I would have chosen to enter into a French-style PACS, originally intended as a same-sex alternative to marriage but actually the implementation was flexible enough that it allows siblings, platonic friends etc to unite their financial and personal affairs.

Why? Cultural baggage seems like a really vague thing, but I actually did have some specific objections to the English civil wedding ceremony. I don't like the fact that it's basically Anglican but with the Jesus mentions removed; I am neither Christian nor a post-Christian atheist. I also don't like voluntarily entered into for life (given that both I and the society I live in accept divorce), or to the exclusion of all others (given that I never intended to exclude anyone from my life by getting married). The way it's framed as taking vows bothers me; I have religious objections to making ill-defined vows.

I would like a formal, committed and public relationship that doesn't convey any information (even wrong information!) about the gender roles of the people involved, or about who is having sex with whom. Civil Partnerships, even though identical in legal standing, seem to be better at doing that from a connotation point of view than civil marriages.

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

The minimum statements legally necessary for a civil marriage in England are just that you are legally able to marry and that you wish to do so; to be said by both partners in front of a registrar and two witnesses. You don't need to promise that it's for life, or that it's an exclusive relationship or anything else.

Also, it doesn't have to be a vow; you can just say the words "I am" in response to the question "Are you, (name) free lawfully to marry (name)?" and then say "I (name) take you (name) to be my wedded wife/husband."

I'm not sure what there is to object to there?

Edit:OK, I guess you could slightly improve it by using the word "spouse" rather than "wife"/"husband", which would make the words used by each partner identical.

(Source - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/agencies-public-bodies/ips/general-ips-publications/guide-authorised-persons?view=Binary )

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

When we got married, we didn't have to say it, but we were given the very strong impression that we had to accept the registrar's announcement that marriage in the UK was defined as the union of one man and one woman, voluntarily entered into for life to the exclusion of all others. I didn't worry about that before I got married, but when I started to think about it, it felt like I was being required to perjure myself about three times (I sensibly did the pragmatic thing and assumed they didn't really mean you to take it literally, but I was still annoyed on principle).

I think people who are excluded from marriage is more important, but FWIW, that's what bugged me about the marriage ceremony. Of course, that was based on a fairly quick scan of "Dummies guide to legal marriage in the UK" sites and asking the registrar -- if that was not a legal requirement then it doesn't matter, although we should have been much more assiduous about challenging the registry office about it.

[naath.livejournal.com]

PACS looks quite interesting indeed.