andrewducker | Best. Wedding. Proposal. Ever.

You're viewing

andrewducker's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

andrewducker

(Courtesy of

matgb, whose own wedding proposal was a tad more haphazard.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

andrewducker

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.

From:

i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com

'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.

From:

i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com

(In other words, I'm about expanding it, not limiting it, if we're going to have it at all)

From:

andrewducker

which privileges man+woman romantic relationship.

Not in this country it doesn't.

From:

i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com

Yes, yes, I already qualified it once, don't make me do it again. :P

Yay for legal segregation of same sex couples. Excuse me if I don't cheer.

From:

andrewducker

I wasn't in favour of the way it was done, to be sure. I was intensely glad it was done though.

And qualifying it to then go on and ignore that qualification seems a tad like a rhetorical trick...

From:

i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com

(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.)

From:

andrewducker

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.

From:

i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com

*boggle*

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!

From:

i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com

Dammit. I have to head off to the BL to work.

From:

andrewducker

Have a lovely day. I'm just out of the shower myself and about to head that way :->

From:

andrewducker

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.