See, that's part of what I think is wrong with marriage, as a concept. (I want to stress, again, that I don't have a problem with the actuality of people being together and happily committed)
Those upsides are only available (as a neat, easy-to-obtain packge) to a man+woman romantic couple. (With civil partnership, where it is equal to marriage legally in everything but name a nice addition to this limitation)
All of those other things _are_ available, if you want to set them up outside of a romantic relationship. but the fact remains that most people want them linked to the person that they are in a relationship with.
'most people want them linked to the person they are in a relationship with'
...maybe because that's the way it's set up?
I know they are available for others (how do you think I have my life set up, after all, if I believe in keeping the legal and personal aspect completely separate and avoid state sanctioning of romantic relationships?), but as I say, you only get it in a neat easy package if you get married, which privileges man+woman romantic relationship.
I've also seen, first hand, people with power of attourney get screwed over because they aren't the husband/wife. Same sex couples, polyamorous couples, de-facto couples, and friends, alike.
What's wrong with expanding the model? Making so that you could get a designated partner/s of any gender, any age, any relationship to you. Disconnect the legal from the personal. Then everyone would be free to have their committment ceremoies without them entailing the legal side of things. Joy and happiness abounds. I don't see why, legally, a man+woman who are willing to sign a piece of paper that the state approves are able to get a raft of benefits with two signatures that other man+woman combinations have to jump a variety of hoops for, via time, paperwork, etc.
(I haven't even started on the property and sexist aspects yet. This is one of those discussions for which we need several beers and a good long evening ahead of us.)
Goddamn - looks like I've have to come visit you at some point then. I'm not waiting two years to deal with conversatis interruptus.
I will say, cos I can, that in general the property aspects tend to work better for women than men on the ending of a heterosexual relationship. Which is as it should be, as it's usually the women that give up their jobs to raise kids.
As in, on divorce, it's generally women that get property from men, which they would not get if they hadn't been married, and therefore given a legal right to it.
And I don't, and never have, given a damn about traditional connotations of anything. Thankfully I don't live in the 1740s, 1890s or even the 1970s. I'm primarily interested in the status and uses of marriage in 2007 Britain.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
Those upsides are only available (as a neat, easy-to-obtain packge) to a man+woman romantic couple. (With civil partnership, where it is equal to marriage legally in everything but name a nice addition to this limitation)
no subject
no subject
...maybe because that's the way it's set up?
I know they are available for others (how do you think I have my life set up, after all, if I believe in keeping the legal and personal aspect completely separate and avoid state sanctioning of romantic relationships?), but as I say, you only get it in a neat easy package if you get married, which privileges man+woman romantic relationship.
I've also seen, first hand, people with power of attourney get screwed over because they aren't the husband/wife. Same sex couples, polyamorous couples, de-facto couples, and friends, alike.
What's wrong with expanding the model? Making so that you could get a designated partner/s of any gender, any age, any relationship to you. Disconnect the legal from the personal. Then everyone would be free to have their committment ceremoies without them entailing the legal side of things. Joy and happiness abounds. I don't see why, legally, a man+woman who are willing to sign a piece of paper that the state approves are able to get a raft of benefits with two signatures that other man+woman combinations have to jump a variety of hoops for, via time, paperwork, etc.
no subject
no subject
Not in this country it doesn't.
no subject
Yay for legal segregation of same sex couples. Excuse me if I don't cheer.
no subject
And qualifying it to then go on and ignore that qualification seems a tad like a rhetorical trick...
no subject
no subject
I will say, cos I can, that in general the property aspects tend to work better for women than men on the ending of a heterosexual relationship. Which is as it should be, as it's usually the women that give up their jobs to raise kids.
no subject
I was meaning the traditional connotations of woman=property, but you just gave me even more stuff to run with ;)
Property aspects tend to work better for women? ... hah!
no subject
no subject
no subject
And I don't, and never have, given a damn about traditional connotations of anything. Thankfully I don't live in the 1740s, 1890s or even the 1970s. I'm primarily interested in the status and uses of marriage in 2007 Britain.
no subject
Yay, come to Sydney! We hoping to find a flat with a spare room for guests...
no subject