the benefits of marriage
Gina Trapani at scribbling.net has written a post headed "1,049 federal rights depend on marital status". She wrote the post back on October 13, 2004, which will become clear when you read the comments and there are references to the upcoming US election.
The thing is, Adam and Brian have just done the civil ceremony thing in London, but they didn't get to sign the marriage book. So the question remains as they're "not married" will there be any difference in their rights as a couple, compared to a "married" heterosexual couple.
Where does this supremacy of marriage derive from? Do the people getting married, as opposed to those going through a civil ceremony, have any further responsibilities? Are the ceremonies different? What's the story here?
* * *
Further to the above - I'm now looking at The General Register Office website. I'm trying to find the words that people say at Marriages and Civil Partnerships. Under the heading Can we include a ceremony in our civil partnership registration? it says this:
There's nothing about words in the section on civil marriage ceremonies, just this:
The thing is, Adam and Brian have just done the civil ceremony thing in London, but they didn't get to sign the marriage book. So the question remains as they're "not married" will there be any difference in their rights as a couple, compared to a "married" heterosexual couple.
Where does this supremacy of marriage derive from? Do the people getting married, as opposed to those going through a civil ceremony, have any further responsibilities? Are the ceremonies different? What's the story here?
* * *
Further to the above - I'm now looking at The General Register Office website. I'm trying to find the words that people say at Marriages and Civil Partnerships. Under the heading Can we include a ceremony in our civil partnership registration? it says this:
You will have the opportunity to say a set form of words before you sign the schedule.But it doesn't say what the set form of words is, maybe you can write something out and bring it along, you're just not allowed to launch into extemporary speech. Who knows?
There's nothing about words in the section on civil marriage ceremonies, just this:
Although you cannot incorporate any religious content into a civil marriage ceremony, you may be able to arrange to have individual touches such as non-religious music and/or readings, and for the wedding to be videoed.Oh, yes the married couple must sign the marriage register rather than 'the schedule'.
posted by lynn at 5:52 pm
3 Comments:
While I understand the issue of benefits is really important it’s the fact that we have a separate system of legal partnerships that I find really objectionable. As Peter Tatchell pointed out: “Imagine the outcry if the government…established a separate partnership register for non-whites. It would be condemned as racism and apartheid. By legislating a two-tier system of relationship recognition Labour has, in effect, created a form of legal apartheid based on sexual orientation.” Pulling out the race card is a bit weak, but the argument stands – what we have is not equality. It’s one rule for us, and one rule for them. Another thing that really bothers me is that the civil partnerships legislation was sold largely around the notion of death. If B is hit by a bus I get visiting rights. If he dies I get his pension and can organise his funeral. There’s your benefits – while marriage is ‘till death do you part’, civil partnerships are understood purely in terms of the ‘benefits’ we receive when one us dies. Of course, the big joke is that neither of us believes in marriage or civil partnerships. We did it purely for the paper work and it was as romantic as when we opened our first joint bank account.
That's my rant - in terms of your questions, I don't know about the whole speech thing. We were asked in the interview if we wanted speeches, or to exchange rings, but we said no. It's not a proper marriage so we didn't see the point in pretending otherwise.
Yes, most legal rights issues are resolved when same-sex couples become civil partnered in the UK. The actual difference between opposite sex couples becoming married is the historical and cultural significance of ‘marriage’. Marriage pre-dates the modern state and has been a broad enough practice to incorporate diverse forms from jumping the broom to religious plate breaking. But in this point in history the State feels the need to invent separate legislation around us. We are not Husband & Husband, but Civil Partners.
All the terminology is different to separate us from opposite-sex marriage. Opposite-sex marriage becomes legal after the groom & bride state their vows orally; same-sex civil partnership becomes legally binding after we sign a form. Also the government decided to add the following statement required for the ceremony, even though I have been informed it is not legally required;
"I declare that I know of no legal reason why we may not register as each other's civil partner. I understand that on signing this document we will be forming a civil partnership with each other".
This was possibly added to make it sound like a vow, but couples can say anything they wish during the ceremony. Even religious references are now allowed subject to the individual registrar’s agreement. This invention of a separate parallel apparatus for civil partnerships has allowed those against it to add whatever spin they wish to flavour its empty significance. The right wing press always print in inverted commas gay ‘marriage’ when discussing civil partnerships as if to say – hey, it’s not a real marriage. The civil partnership thing is an obvious compromise made in the back rooms of parliament.
It may seem a minor grievance to want the term to be marriage, when the civil partnership system restores most human rights to same-sex couples. The term civil partnership is currently a legal term only; it’s only the right wing media who derail it from being akin to marriage. That way the conservative can feel their myth of ‘family’ and its traditions are still intact But when one calls their parents to say they are engaged to be civil partnered and you go through the process of explaining what a civil partnership is, and one’s parents are a little confused and silent…one has to revert to the term marriage to explain it anyway! Give it time and the term may develop a warm and fuzzy significance But it would have been simpler to use the word marriage like Belgium, Canada, Netherlands & Spain have.
Some days later and I'm still wondering what "the benefits" of marriage are. Thinking about it over the easter weekend I realised that getting married is probably going to be the biggest ceremony that a church going Protestant will ever be involved in - flowers, dresses, a feast, gifts. The focus is the bride, then the bride's maids, then the to a much lesser extent the groom, the family, the community. Who is invited to the feast? what order are people seated in the church, and at the feast? what gifts are given.
The benefits in this traditional case are clearly the gifts, and not quite as clearly, the being fitted into a particular order within the community. There are ways of behaving that are prescribed and allowed for, the honeymoon, the year of being newly-wed, the anniversary gifts.
All of this is quite beyond any religious or spiritual requirement.
I was interested in what words are said in both the "marriage" and the "civil partnership" ceremonies, because both are contracts, and I wondered how the contracts were deemed to differ.
It's interesting that Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands and Spain stick with "marriage" to describe the ongoing contract between two people, foregoing all others.
I wonder if partly England's problem with this use of the word "marriage" stems from the conflation of church and state: the Queen being Head of both confuses matters. Looking at the Register Office's notes the Church of England seems to be an official arm, so that civil law overlaps with religious legalism.
Post a Comment
<< Home