I have just been to a large and happy wedding, with guests who came from all over the world to witness the union of two young people and their families. I have blogged and written about this before, but once again I am reminded that cohabitation and marriage are not the same, and should not be treated the same in law. I am not stating that one is superior to the other; certainly people should have the choice and respect for their choice as their preferred lifestyle. But choice it is. The wedding represents the utmost efforts and outward signals that two people can make to the world that they are joined together, hoping it to be permanent. It involves publicity, preparation time, ritual (which may include legal, religious, traditional customs), solemn promises, stated commitment and the knitting together of two families. It need not be expensive if one omits the party element. Cohabitation is something else. Not inferior but not the attempt to engrave on history two names together.
Baroness Deech, what are your views on civil partnerships? Are they as good as marriage? What about if civil partnerships are available to everyone, as seems likely?
I don’t entirely agree with you, particularly on “preparation time”. Too many people are only concerned with a wedding, not a marriage. They just think about how to spend money and how to have fancy clothes, food, and everything else that the wedding industry tricks them into believing is necessary, while forgetting the about the important part: two people committing to spend their lives together. Perhaps if all the extravagance was stripped away, people would be forced to think about the true meaning of marriage, and there might actually be fewer divorces.
Civil partnerships suit large numbers of people, same sex or maybe in the future everyone. But they are an alternative, and all these different forms of union should not be straitjacketed into one, certainly not as far as financial provision is concerned. Always remembering that the welfare of children is paramount, however that is worked out.
I don`t think the Baroness is entirely honest when she states she believes cohabitation is not inferior, I certainly think it is and I don`t believe I`m the only one. Certainly plenty of gay and homosexuals struggle to achieve the equality of marriage and I`m firmly of the belief it is the ultimate commitment.
From a mans perspective the preperations etc., may not mean a great deal to them personally. I certainly played little part in my two wedding preperations, it is after all the womens day and as a man you want her to be happy.
There are social and legal differences between marriage and cohabitation. Socially two people living together will still be viewed as something not quite as committed and this will often lead to it be treated as such.
Marriage is still the ultimate sacrifice as viewed by men, it is after all them that will be crucified financially and in other ways by our legal system should things go awry.Rumours are rife that the same occurs after a certain period of cohabitation but I`ve seen little evidence.
The giving of your surname to a woman means a lot not only to her, it riles my children that I will not use my correct surname on facebook so look like a step-father. It riles me that my former wife still uses my surname though the anger at losing my home and child have long gone.
Is marriage superior ? In my view certainly.
I agree with this poster above, marriage is the only true union between a couple. The rest is a fudge and means nothing at all, except a face card or a show.
More importantly it is the basis of commitment. When a man asks for a woman’s hand it is because he wants to be one unit. It is to build a future secure home for the wife and the children. Divorce is too acceptable under the law. And sadly commitment only seems to be of the day as a result of the state and its laws on the ridiculous idea of sexual equality.
There is no such thing as gender equality. Both sexes are equally important for what they are and what they do, but, they are different. The needs of a woman are quite different from the needs of a man. And this desire for difference is of the psyche, which means to push either sex into a yen for something opposite of the psyche’s need for fulfillment, is not only abusive it is absurd. Like trying to push a round peg into a square hole. No good has come of it or will come of it.
The ‘must’ for society is to accept that the female and her needs are ‘equally’ as important to the male’s needs for fulfillment in their own right. Not as one trying to convince themselves the opposite of their human condition will make them equal. The concept is laughable and of the madness we we have had to suffer from ignorant elitists who have swallowed the environment theory.
As far as same sex marriage is concerned, what is that all about? Marriage is of the soul and the law, human spirit and togetherness does not need the state to intervene. No matter how same sex couples want to fantasize about being ‘a lawful couple’ they cannot expect the sane to join them in that fantasy. Regardless of the political fashion of the time.
This fashion or trend, like all others throughout history, will diminish, after much pain and disillusion has rained heavy on those who should be protected, children. The current experimenting with the natural needs of children is grotesque and those who propagate this horrendous fad should be held personally responsible by those who will have to live and suffer from it.
There are those who would regard “No matter how same sex couples want to fantasize about being ‘a lawful couple’ they cannot expect the sane to join them in that fantasy” as being bigoted. I think I am one of them.
If you want to crawl into the bigot tent, then do so. I am not a bigot and do not join you in your self delusion.
Sorry Maude, and I agree that exchanging abuse gets this topic nowhere but I would ask to reconsider your remarks that triggered my comment. You seem to be saying that two people who are of the same gender and who want to declare to each other and the world a lifelong lifelong commitment are living a fantasy world? And then when I politely suggest that many would regard your remark as bigoted, you respond by saying “If you want to crawl into the bigot tent, then do so”, a remark that is neither polite nor constructive. Other readers will form their own judgements. I don’t intend to continue these exchanges.
Cohabitation is something else. Not inferior but not the attempt to engrave on history two names together.
The engravure on history of two people who cohabit,is usually made manifest in the flesh.
Being educated and understanding the basis of contract, and Roman Law,provides nothing superior, nor lack of enthusiasm for the future.
On a slightly different tack, it amazes me how many people embark on a life together, even tying legal knots, without psychological reports to assess their suitability for each other. In the old days
everybody got their Stars Cast astrologically, but thanks to Freud, now nobody does either; neither psychological tests nor professionally done Stars!
Is it any wonder then how many divorces there are, which are childless, whereas those who cohabit have little to lose until their engraving is made!
An unmarried couple could have a big party to celebrate a decision to live together for the rest of their lives, yet not sign a marriage certificate.
Another couple could quietly sign the certificate, but not bother with the fuss of a big event.
Based on your blog post, would I be right in thinking the first option would be the best one as it is a big public declaration which involved a lot of effort and time – or is the simple signing of an (easily cancelled) certificate in a private registry office more important?
Cohabitation is inferior. We have objective Scienific measures to show that it neither offers the same emotional protection nor does it yeild the same social benefits.
Marriage is natural, cohabitation is simply a corruotion fo that, an attemot to hold back a levelk of independance that a relationship by fdefinition requires one to relinquish.
Its base don the inherant selfishness of the party to be able to enjoy all the benefis of the relationshp but not be ultimatley commited to it.
I really don’t see why we have to pretend cohabitation is equel to marriage, and not inferior, when it manifeslty is.
One thinking Carl, to make sure my own reputation is not unjustly sullied, because it is not o this page now, please see Baroness Murphy’s Epetition Thread in a while.
MDuff altered a quote of mine, and I think you misunderstood something of me.
Last year, my girlfriend and I got married, in a quiet, short but very happy civil ceremony, on the afternoon of our eleventh anniversary. Several of our friends told us that being married would feel different, in some undefinable but important way, but it just hasn’t. We’re exactly as happy together, and as supportive and committed to each other, as we had been for the previous eleven years – which is to say very much so indeed. Being married, for us, has made no difference whatsoever to our relationship, except for minor administrative things like her title changing on our joint bank account.
I appreciate that for many people, even some of those who have been in a stable relationship for many years, getting married does feel like an important epoch in their lives – and obviously that’s brilliant for them, and I wish them all every happiness. Certainly, we were prepared to feel like that ourselves, but in the event we didn’t, and I don’t think that reflects negatively on our relationship – instead, I’d say it shows we were already effectively married in all but name, and had been so for some time.
And yet there is apparently a large proportion of the population (albeit nobody who really matters to us) who would say that our relationship was in some way frivolous or meaningless until we had that special green piece of paper.
I find it exasperating that even in these supposedly enlightened and tolerant times, some people still think they have a right to judge other people’s life and relationship choices. I would also say that by persistently refusing to introduce some sort of legal recognition for unmarried but committed couples, the political class is failing a sizeable proportion of the people they are supposed to represent.
Nicholas – why are cohabitants so dismissive of the “piece of paper”, which is how they describe marriage – but so keen to come under the wide-ranging legal and litigious regime relating to financial provision on separation? Also, we should draw a distinction between how a couple regard their relationship between each other, and how it is regarded by third parties. Being married may make no difference to how you feel, but it does to the rest of the world.
I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make, or what question you’re asking, but I’ll do my best to answer.
I certainly wouldn’t say we’re “dismissive” of the special green piece of paper. On the contrary, it’s quite important for various reasons. For example, it provides a certain amount of protection should something bad happen to one partner, especially if the couple has children (which we don’t).
Neither do I recognise your apparent characterisation of our motives as “being keen to come under the wide-ranging legal and litigious regime relating to financial provision on separation”. For whatever reasons we got married, and for whatever reasons it took us so long to get around to it, the desire to submit to potential litigation if we decided to split up – this was not one of them, and I’m baffled by your suggestion that it was.
I guess one of the main reasons we chose to get married was to register our existing, stable, committed, married-in-all-but-name relationship with the state, mainly in order to secure the aforementioned legal protection in the event of something bad happening.
It’s apparent from this discussion that there are many different views of what marriage is or should be. For some people it’s a religious ceremony with important theological significance, which is only valid between a man and a woman, and which may not subsequently be revoked. For others, it’s a cultural ceremony, cementing an alliance between two different families, in which the relationship of the couple themselves is of only partial importance. And in increasingly many cases today, it’s a purely civil arrangement, where a couple decide to register their relationship with the state. These are three of the main viewpoints, but there are many others.
In our case, the religious aspect was irrelevant, so we viewed it purely as a civil registration of our existing relationship. Beyond that specific, civil function, it’s not really anybody else’s business.
Nicholas: You are in breach of blog rules 10. If people start emailing you privately one might thing they are talking about us all behind our backs? Keep things in the open and say what you have to say here.
Yes, to be perfectly honest I’d much rather it didn’t display my email address, but nothing I’ve tried so far has worked. If you have any suggestions, I’d be delighted to hear them.
I’m a little amused, though, to find that I’m the only person in this discussion to be upbraided for overstepping the mark. Calling people “bigots” and “deviants” is fine, apparently, but inadvertently displaying one’s email address is seemingly beyond the pale. I apologise for any offence caused, and think I’ll take this opportunity to retire from the discussion.
Cohabitation and marriage are not the same – indeed so. Nor are civil partnerships and marriage, as yet, though the difference between a civil partnership and a registry office marriage is only wafer thin. There is another form of relationship which does not have any particular name, an abiding and very deep close personal friendship running over several decades between two people living separately. I am just grieving of my loss as much if I had lost my spouse or partner. But it suffers from there being no name to describe the partner you have lost, as very close personal friend does not seem to cover it, and partner is not true either. I feel be-widowered but cannot put a name to it.
Dan that is called “lucky”.
To have had a true friend, most never have any, that you feel this way about can be nothing else.
Carl.H – thanks for those words. As I said to my sister, Che Faro Senza Eurydice (she replied get active, but I don’t play the cello as she does).
why are cohabitants so dismissive of the “piece of paper”, which is how they describe marriage – but so keen to come under the wide-ranging legal and litigious regime relating to financial provision on separation?
Because it is Roman law intruding in to private matters which are no concern of anybody but the two lovers, then three and four!
They are ‘so keen’ because 90% of the population now owns monetized/capitalized property which requires professionals to resolve values.
The litigation and separation is fashionable; people think they have got to have it, and then the professionals’ fun begins. In reality, amicable arrangements could be achieved by a great many more. If you have not been married, by contract, other than oral agreement, then division of property has to be more amicable!
I suppose I could keep a diary!
Marriage does not necessarily require co-habitation. Co-habitation does not necessarily require marriage.
Baroness Deech, Your views on this matter are so vapid as to not require any further comment.
Would a married couple who don’t even bother to make a will be judged in some way superior to a couple with children who do make a will and go to a lot of trouble with life insurance and the like to ensure they are taken care of if the worst happens ?
You say ‘it matters to other people’ even if not to the couple. Well clearly it will to people who are old-fashioned or religious or both. But we cannot spend our lives worrying only about what others think of us.
As a wise person once said, “When you are 20 you care a lot what others think of you. When you are 40 you have given up caring what others think of you. It is only when you are 60 that you realise other people weren’t thinking about you at all”.
No doubt you would prefer people being handcuffed together in a loveless marriage rather than incur the diminished views of the parish. I thought we had moved beyond that state of affairs in our nation.
Marriage is an institution, but not everyone wants to spend their lives in an institution.
Marriage may well be an institution but it is one that gives women particularly those with children some security.
A lot of societal ills are caused by men just walking away from their responsibilities to their partners and children. Effects of such can be financial or behavioural but they are very real.
I`m not saying this occurs in every case but it does all too frequently.
Marriage gives women a lot more security than a partnership. It is not about being old fashioned, even the young note that someone who is married has committed more. There is nothing wrong with cohabitation if that is what both partners agree on but it will never allow for the security that marriage will.
Regards your will scenario, I am married with no will because I`m not affluent enough for it to matter. Most married people affluent enough do have a will or a statuatory position in law.
I have had many live-in lovers and one ex-wife, the ex-lovers are neither here nor there but the ex-wife a constant through a child and my name. And before you say it was the child, there are alleged others.
Marriage is a lifelong contract, giving security, that one cannot just walk away from. Cohabitation is fine, nothing wrong with it but it really does not show the committment that marriage does. No one is forced to enter the institution.
I don’t go along with your idea on marriage. It is an institution designed to give security, protection and succor to a couple who have made a commitment to stand by each other through life and the raising of their children jointly. And as such, should be viewed under as a binding agreement. If two people want to separate then they should do so, whilst keeping their commitment to each other on the raising of their children and the division of any and all assets they have accumulated. The words of the vows taken are for life. This is what a formal marriage is. And it is this that makes it pre-empt any other fly by night commitments.
There is no place in law for so called ‘civil ceremonies.’ They hold no weight in legality or meaning and are an arrangement by deviants who want to live without true meaning or honest commitment. For there is no reason for them to commit, as the law is not set up as a ‘hope’ machine. At least not until it was pushed as a sign of ‘equality.’ Which is a misnomer as it doesn’t make anything equal. A vow is made with the heart and ‘law’ cannot ensure the heart of any living person. The law can only adjudicate in an institution designed to ‘take care of’ individuals when all else fails. Meaning, that if the heart no longer intends to stand by its vow to commit to another in spirit, then it can be seen that ‘fairness’ in the protection of the family does not abandon either partner or the children to destitution. Assets and the law make good sense. Spirit and the law is a nonsense.
And I feel that present laws and the introduction of civil ceremonies have created the cynicism you express.
Other people. Who are these other people to whom marriage matter? Grandparents, the offspring of the couple, the extended family. It is a sign to them that they will not be abandoned and so on. These ‘other people’ do matter because they all have an investment in the outcome. All of which you seem to feel is not your duty.
I don’t want to get into any name-calling, because I don’t think that’s especially productive, and I acknowledge your right to hold whatever beliefs you want (I hope you accord me the same right). But when you say things like “[civil ceremonies] are an arrangement by deviants who want to live without true meaning or honest commitment” and “as far as same sex marriage is concerned, what is that all about?” can you see why some people (myself included) might be a little offended?
One should always be careful when making this kind of sweeping generalisation: Yes, some married couples do have very stable relationships, and some cohabiting couples treat the whole thing in an entirely frivolous manner.
But similarly, there are plenty of cohabiting, unmarried couples who treat their relationship with utmost seriousness and commitment (I know this from personal experience), and equally many married couples who don’t.
It bothers me, as a broadly compassionate person, when people get hurt when things don’t work out – but it’s not really my place (or anyone else’s for that matter) to judge or condemn them for their choices.
Your post is an entire contradiction of itself. And, as you feel I have offended you by my stance, then all I can put to you is, if you take debate and the differences of opinions involved in that debate, as an affront to your person, then the best thing you could possibly do for yourself, is not to debate. For it means you are not ready for, or, able to accept, opposition to your ideas.
I could be, but assure you I am not, just as offended by your attitude toward my beliefs and opinions, which are equally as valid as yours.
Your last paragraph is an enigma. You cannot be broadly compassionate but intolerant in the same sentence. You say it is nobodies prerogative to judge! Then, if you feel that way, why are you so against the standard acceptance of what ‘marriage’ means to the majority of the populous? And why do you feel you need the law to back you up in your ‘intolerance’ of those who see ‘civil ceremonies’ as a fudged or farcical way of changing a binding contract. Frankly, if no one else matters, what possible concern could you have for not being able to have something you consider useless. Only binding for as long as you feel like it? The concept is totally opposite within itself. Indeed confusing.
Marriage is a commitment both in heart and practice. A commitment is something we take knowing it means obligation, or, a duty towards and must be taken with a deep sense of it being irreversible. For the law to alter that concept leads to a sense of cynicism in the hearts of the majority. And, you cannot reverse the birth of children. They remain in situ and deserve the ongoing ‘promise’ given prior to their conception. Don’t make a promise you can’t keep is the lesson of this law. However, if you do make that promise, then you must keep it.
The lunacy in accepting that one can shake the commitment off because one is no longer ‘in love’ is infantile. That is the basis of Hollywood. Except in a movie no one is hurt and real life doesn’t rear its ugly head.
Baroness Deech, Your views on this matter are so vapid as to not require any further comment.
Bedd Gelert’s timely intervention takes the biscuit, if not the wedding cake!
No doubt you would prefer people being handcuffed together
Thank goodness I did not splice a policewoman!
“an arrangement by deviants who want to live without true meaning or honest commitment” Oh dear. This is hardly respectful of those who in a civil partnership ceremony have pledged to honour and respect each other for the rest of their lives with as much fervour as those entering a marriage. What kind of upbringing, faith or world experiences brought you to these sad views?
@ Dan Filson.
Oh dear, this is hardly respectful of one who understands the meaning of ‘marriage’ as a vow or agreement between a couple.
Deviant means = differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of society.
Are you implying a ‘civil ceremony’ is the common practice or norm taken to mean marriage? Or, is the rebuke intended to remove another word from the vocabulary.
Clearly debate is not what you want is it? What you want is acquiescence, in order to stultify a differing opinion. In other words, politically correct replies only will be tolerated. Otherwise I will be call you names for daring to refute an idea or policy that is being pushed down the throat of those with an opposing view.
I doubt if there will be any meeting of minds here, but I didn’t expect that as I think I understand your position fairly well.
What I do find extraordinary, as expressed in my post of 14/01/2011 AT 10:37, is that you do not appear to see the offensive nature of what you said in calling a publicly-declared commitment to a lifelong partnership “an arrangement by deviants who want to live without true meaning or honest commitment”.
Even if I were to accept the use of the word deviant, I cannot understand why you think such a commitment is without true meaning or honest?
Let’s look at the marriage service. It says ” … we are gathered together … to join together …. an honourable estate, … and is commended … to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly … but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, … duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children ….
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled …
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. …”
Now in that sense a same sex ‘marriage’, however entitled, is clearly not for the first purpose, but arguably for the second (though the service uses antique language the meaning comes across, just about) and surely it is for the third. I would have thought that a public declaration of commitment to ‘the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity’ is something you might applaud even if you abominate homosexuality. And perhaps acknowledge that carnality is not necessarily the driving force behind those who commit to one another in a same sex ‘marriage’ however called. Certainly had I entered such a commitment at my age – 63 – it would have been exclusively for the third purpose, and that’s is why I regarded the phrase “an arrangement by deviants who want to live without true meaning or honest commitment” offensive. Sadly my friend died earlier this month, so it was not to be.
To go into this at any length would be prohibitive here. And I think you have indeed missed the gist of my post.
There is validity in any loving human relationship, that goes without saying. And as you describe it, for love and mutual support, cannot be wrong. If you put sexual preference to one side, in the main, marriage was and still is, set up for the lawful procreation and protection of children. The ‘marriage ceremony’ is to do with family and in support of family. Which cannot occur naturally in same sex relationships.
The words you have written do not relate to civil partnerships. They relate to vows of marriage between couples. Vows to promise to keep loving and supporting the family unit.
Freedom of association is not questioned under the law, or, is it? Unless it is to reduce the rights of others.
A civil ceremony, as opposed to marriage, is, for reason of analysis, akin to the articles of association of a corporation. Which is set up as a trading document designed to allow legal trade but finds it being unable to do so, as it doesn’t have the ability. Any of us can already ask the law to distribute assets, a will for example, that is taken care of. What is the civil ceremony asking the law to do? Insure the heart will not change? For that is all it has left to do and no law can do that. There is no insurance on love but there is a law on duty. And duty to a wife and family is what marriage is all about. Same sex relationship has no inequality of gender, therefore duty does not fall on either of the parties to provide for the other or the offspring of the other.
Therefore, the civil partnership is an arrangement that can be settled without the need for state intervention.
As another poster wrote, any lovers can have a party to announce their devotion and that this intention is for life.
The State doesn’t need to be involved in that.