Have a few friends who have either recently got married (but are not Christians) or will be doing in the next year or so which has got me wondering - what is the point especially in society today? Many of the girls I know getting married are absolutely obsessed with it - just what is so alluring about becoming 'man and wife'?!

OK on a very materialistic level it's a great opportunity for a party. However, the costs involved in said wedding make it an extremely expensive party...

I don't envisage myself getting married despite being in a long term relationship and gone are the days when it was only acceptable to have a child if married, so I find myself pondering for non-religious couples - why?

The cynic in me sees weddings as an awful display of traditional patriarchal practice and/or a rather vulgar (in some cases ) display of wealth but not necessarily class ! - Or is this just the weddings I've been to?

It's just a good excuse for a party

I'm not bothered about getting married but would be in the following situations:

* having children. I freely admit this is a bit irrational because once you have children together, you could sue the chap for child support anyway (though I think it's much better not to have to!). I am not going to defend this point of view because it's not based on logic.

* next of kin. This is just a practical consideration; my family lives very far away so I have no next of kin in this country.

There's a whole mythology surrounding getting married that a lot of people, women especially, buy into. Given that there's a lot of modern mythology that I don't buy into, this is just another thing in that category.

If I want to be committed to someone, I will be. Likewise them. To me, getting married just means you need a lawyer if you want to break up.

I'm not anti-marriage, I'm just not that bothered about it. If my partner wanted to get married I'd be OK with it. I think it can be nice to acknowledge the union and have a party for the family.

One small point... if I did get married, there is no way I'd be "given away" by my father. I am not some package to be handed off from father to husband. Though I wouldn't object to being "given away" by *both parents*, I've been living on my own for so long that it would be a bit silly.

You (two) do good parties

It makes life (legally) easier. I have friends, who have children and they've had to jump through hoops of paperwork to try and get some kind of equality with married parents. For example without the bits of paper if one of the kids needed an urgent operation and the mother wasn't available (say on an aeroplane) then the father would have not the legal right to make the decision to go ahead with the op.

Getting all the right documents drawn up is probably more expensive than a wedding at the local town hall.

In the days when I used to be invited to weddings I always loathed them, and the only recurrent nightmare I've ever had involved getting married! I've always felt rather like you, Pixie, which is why as an old cynic, I've been unmarried to the same man for 25 years. The children seem to have made it through to 18 and almost 16 without any problems. Medics etc usually query who I am, but are happy for dad to sign all forms without question, probably because he has the same surname as the children. Bad Strad is strictly correct, though, I think.

My understanding is that, so far as UK law is concerned, your next of kin can be anyone you nominate as such. So, no reason to marry there.

I think some people marry because they want to make a public affirmation of their commitment to one another. I think that is a good enough reason, and that it can be done simply, tastefully, and relatively cheaply - though I do not intend to do so..... (yet?)

Surely that is not the case if the father is on the birth certificate?

Corenfa - I find it particularly interesting that it is the women who seem most interested in getting married! Going by the whole 'giving away' thing and other traditional sort of meanings behind it!

Seems to depend on whether the birth was registered before 2003. If the birth is registered by both parents together and after 2003, then the father has parental rights/responsibilities.

I'm pretty sure you are right about next of kin as I put my partner as my next of kin although I am not married, never had any queries etc.

Must admit that when (rather than if, hopefully) I have children I would prefer them to have my surname or both myself and my partner would change our surnames to something different i.e. not either of the ones we were born with.

It is nice to hear that others can have a long term relationship without marriage.

When I got married there were tangible tax advantages to doing so. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have bothered. Those benefits have evaporated over the years, so I am not sure that the business case would have stacked up if we had been able to predict the tax policy changes. And for a proper appraisal we should have included a risk factor for potential subsequent divorce (which has not yet arisen!)

But we had a good party

Friends had their kids prior to 2003, father's name was on the certificate.

If I can add a male observation here:

I have known many couples who married years ago. Some have divorced, but not many.

I have also known many couples who have lived happily together for twenty years or more, decided to get married, and then divorced within 18 months!

There is something 'different' about being married, but I suppose that 'difference' depends on the individuals concerned.

Observing this from a church and PCC point of view, baptism of a child, and often children, now seems to be the new marriage ceremony, and is often the first time that an unmarried couple will publicly celebrate their partnership.

SB

As a committed atheist, who got married:

yes, it does feel different to do this thing, which is a public confirmation of a commitment made in private, in my view. We'd lived together for a year before the wedding, and it sends out the signal, not looking for anyone else, want to make our lives together and be there for each other. More than a friendship, it nonetheless needed friendship at its basis, and bringing in those who are important in our lives and asking for their approbation and support, and yes, giving them a bit of a party too, to celebrate what is really a life event, seemed to be a good way to include them. Marrying one person involves marrying all the baggage they come with - their families, their friends as much as their personal foibles and characteristics, and this was a way to accept the "whole package", if you like. We wanted kids, and have been lucky enough to be able to have them, and that status also protects them a little.

As I find churches scary places to be in, specifically church services, which give me the heebie jeebies, we had to think about how to do the marrying thing: my husband was a churchgoer, and indeed sang in the St Giles choir. He approached the minister, who said hmmf, better meet her, I think, came round to dinner, "interviewed" me, decided I was okay and that our motivation and reasoning for pairing up was sound, and agreed to officiate . He did offer me his church to do it in, more than once, but I'd have felt so fake doing that, that he agreed to let us be wed in the pretty Georgian concert hall in which we lived at the time (well, okay, we lived in the hallkeeper's flat), and we wrote our own vows, which expressed our thoughts about the meaning of what we were doing and kept god firmly out of my end of the bargain. Result. We then made use of the acoustic and had a little concert-ette at the end of the ceremony, and dinner and a knees-up in the same building, and most of our guests were thoroughly enthusiastic. With the exception of a fundamentalist relative who thought I should've done it in a church and told me I'd "not done it properly" .

I couldn't be in a lifetime relationship and not get married
I think it's so important To me it shows your dedication to eachother and your relationship, celebration of your love, the biggest kind of love you can give and symbols the start of your lives together as 'one' (pass the bucket haha)

I was very naive... I thought the children had to have the dad's surname. It was only when we got to number 2 that I understood that I could give the child any surname I liked.. As their paternal grandfather was Polish, but changed his surname when he came to the UK, I rather wish, with hindsight, that I had used grandfather's Polish surname for the children, as I've never felt my partner's adopted surname is a "real" surname! Then we could all have had different surnames - as the children would have had masculine and feminine forms of the Polish name.

Slightly off topic - I think it is an excellent thing that various places are now licensed (not sure of my spelling there) for weddings. Having been to civil ceremonies in standard registry offices, slightly more elaborate registry offices, and a country house, I think it is good that such an important moment for a couple can be held in appropriately special surroundings.

Yes, we counted ourselves very lucky to be doing this in Scotland, because at that time, it wasn't possible in England, just as at that time, being married did confer extra stability for any offspring. .

I was incredibly proud to be "given away" by my father in my marriage ceremony. He was the man that provided for and loved me since the day I was born, and then when I became a self supporting adult had been there for me and been on my side through thick and thin. To have this wonderful man hold my hand and then place it into the hand of my future husband, was a beautiful moment that brings a lump to my throat thinking about it now. For me it was not a symbol of being owned by one man and then another, but of being loved by them both.
I'm not religious. I think that having solemn ceremonies to declare and celebrate relationships is a precious thing, and can, or need not, involve faith.

As a married atheist I just want to point out that the concept of marriage pre-dates Christianity. In fact the early church thought marriage wasn't well regarded. Something for the proles!

So I don't associate it with religion at all.

Not well-regarded by whom? Or do you mean that marriage wasn't well regarded by the church?

I think you'll find it's mainly the kind of women who read "Hello" magazine who are obsessed with marriage - primarily because they don't intend to do much else with their lives...

The marriage industry aims most of its advertising at women, that's why women appear to be obsessed with it: it's actually that they're the ones our society assumes are going to be most interested. Culture dictates that women do most of the organising, are the most heavily and expensively adorned, and indeed have the day rotate around them, perhaps compensation for the also culturally determined life of servitude which has tended to follow? We're trained from tiny to go awwww at pretty dresses and to imagine facial inadequacy which needs to be covered in paint to disguise it, it's just part of the same thing.

I'm not saying that we now necessarily all believe in the housewife and mother as being the best role for women myth - it's certainly where the slant to women being most interested in weddings comes from, though. And as to why culture does this - that's fairly obvious too, really - females historically have borne the burden of childrearing and stayed close to their home bases, they seek males who can protect them and their children when vulnerable, so as to protect their DNA: males' instincts are to ensure survival of their DNA by being jealous of their partners, protective of their offspring, but also to disseminate their DNA where they can, to maximise that chance.

Marriage, I suppose, institutionalises some of those instincts and makes them manageable in a culture, finding some ways to compromise where there are conflicts of interest. I still do think it is useful for that, not least because marrying should make us stop and think, and try to work out in our own minds what it is we want from a relationship. The stupid romanticisation (to the exclusion of common sense) of the process does get in the way of that sometimes .

Just remembered reading this in the guardian last week

I don't really understand what many people mean by getting married. I look at it this way. I see marriage as a civil contract between two unrelated people who wish to live together and feel happier with having some sort of legal framework to set out the rules for themselves and any children they might produce or adopt.
In this respect I have no objection to either hetero or homo marriages if people want to use the legal formula and I resent the fact that it isn't available to everyone.

If people with religious convictions of any kind want to have their union blessed I think it is only right that this blessing should be available. I think it is hypocritical of people with no relious beliefs to want church weddings.

What the church does about previously divorced couples or gay couples is probably a theological minefield but I just think if the people concerned genuinely want their committment to each other blessed then that blessing should be available to them. A Christian gay couple who would like to make fidelity vows before God are, in my opinion, more entitled to that blessing than a straight couple who just want the church ceremony for show.

In France you have to go to the town hall to get married as no other place is licensed. If you had a wedding ceremony in church but didn't go to the town hall you would not be legally married.

I'd agree about the hypocrisy angle, if it weren't for one thing: weddings are not just about the couple involved. They also have a whole mesh of extended interests to take into account, and it's quite difficult for some to get away from the social and familial pressures on the "doing the right thing" business - as witness my husband's relative who saw fit to criticise me for sticking to my guns. Indeed it is rare for any couple getting married to manage to do the thing without offending or upsetting someone, somewhere along the line.

Add to that the fact that there wasn't an easily accessible ceremony, and that many would see it as too daunting to make up their own....it's perhaps not surprising that even those with little interest in matters ecclesiastical might opt to get married in a church: and of course the church isn't always so particular, as there's the small matter of revenue to add to the discussion.

We're both atheists and got married to show our parents that we were making a lifetime commitment to each other. (20+ years ago now). So they wouldn't worry about us. Or future grandchildren. That there would be stability.

At the time there was only the choice between churches or registry offices. We went to a registry office - taking only both sets of parents. No one else. The registrar gave a little speech - not a "Standard" one that's trotted out five times a day, but one made up on the spot by someone who could easily have made a career in politics. We were told in that speech (in carefully chosen words) that our marriage would succeed because as we'd brought only our parents as witnesses we'd demonstrated our true intentions. I'm guessing the same registrar oversees mostly Lightweight weddings, judging by the scenes in the waiting room.

We went on to have a meal for 50 family members and 10 friends (none of whom we're still in touch with) in a five star hotel (so no one could say we didn't do it properly). No evening reception as I loath discos.

There are no tax advantages any more, and I don't think marriage gives any extra glue where there are children from the relationship. Most (almost all) of our children's friends have parents who have split up. I don't know how many of these were ever married though. Probably most. But to us it demonstrated to our parents that we'd made what we hoped was a lifetime choice. As parents now we know we'd be reassured by our children setting up homes and having their own families in the context of being married too.

Inheritance tax?

We are religious however I would say somewhat discretely so - it is far from being what defines us. We plan to get married not for legal or financial reasons, but purely as a declaration of our commitment to each other. Some people may be happy to have that commitment without getting married, but for us personally it will be an important step into the rest of our lives together. And I suppose I should add from the faith point of view, making vows in church in front of family and friends who will (hopefully! ) vow to support us will make it all the more meaningful *in our eyes*. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and many here will disagree with our reasons, but there you go!

Personally I'm happy to live and let live! Get married or don't as you please, the only problem I have is when people judge me negatively because I'm not that bothered about it. They aren't always religious, it's often done in the name of "tradition".

...whatever your viewpoint.
Like many things, it's not as simple to just say "this is one camp" and "this is another" - there are lots of circumstances which effect these decisions on an individual basis. What is right for one couple might be wrong for another. All that matters to me is that we're willing to respect other people's views and decisions, whether we agree with them or not. I suppose what bothers me most are people who are convinced their viewpoint is the 'only' and 'right' one...often these are also the people who are intent on trying to convert everyone else to their viewpoint (and in my own personal experience, this is often the non-religious camp).

Well said!

I don't have very strong feelings about whether or not people get married, or whether they get married in a church, in a register [sic] office, a stately home, a field or a pod of the London Eye. However I do broadly disagree with people who aren't religious getting married in church (although I understand that there are sometimes reasons for this other than simply because it looks nice in the photos) as, to me, it seems a bit hypocritical.

I agree with this too - too often it *is* just because it's 'pretty'. The number of couples who come to church for the required number of services just before their wedding is quite astonishing, and of course we never see them again after the wedding.

To be honest I find it slightly weird that anyone would even want to get married in a church if they don't usually attend religious services.

That will, however, be your experience from starting out in the opposite camp: for those of us who are not religious, we're more likely to observe, and experience, such behaviour coming from the religious side . In truth, many of us may well simply be anticipating, and responding to, implications that our view has somehow less validity than an opposing one, and may well state our position more robustly in order to "defend" it. Thus, behind the scenes, I've been told my atheistic point of view drags religion through the mire, when in fact I simply am trying to show clearly why it is I think as I do. Similarly I am probably overly sensitive to statements from those of religious persuasion that religion is needed for a moral outlook on life, since that implies a lack of moral framework amongst atheists .

I am interested by the various stances in this thread though - and find it fascinating to see both where people are coming from, and also what they feel to be the priorities and what not. It all helps to show us what rich variety of opinion is out there, even amongst those who do broadly follow similar life philosophies .

Some of the people I've known who have done this were bowing to family pressure. "It's tradition, you've *got* to get married in the same church that we did".

That's the sort of thing I meant by there sometimes being reasons, but I'd have thought the couple would feel a little uncomfortable in church if they don't otherwise attend, and it does annoy me when I hear stories of parents dictating what the wedding should be like.

Just out of interest - what about the mixed marriage issue? Assuming both members of a couple feel they can get on well enough to make a go of long term relationship and are choosing to mark that in this way?
I admit to feeling annoyed and irritated with the church which put so much pressure on a couple of my acquaintance, to make the non-religious husband give up all right to have an input in his kids' religious education, and still denied the religious bride a full ceremony, substituting instead a more truncated blessing:I was very grateful to the minister who agreed to officiate for us, knowing full well what my views were, and still very much being prepared to accept my stance and meet mine, and my husband's needs so well.

Okay, so if cultures are markedly different it may make it difficult to make things work....

While the Church of England enjoys its tax-free status every tax payer is paying a little bit more on their behalf. That's reason enough why anyone should feel free to enjoy the surroundings of a lovely church for their wedding, whatever their belief. These old buildings are part of our national heritage and the public pay for them. We chose a city centre registry office because it was convenient. If I had fancied a nice country church for my wedding I don't see why anyone should have the right to object.

Please can you explain this for me, because as a former Church Treasurer I don't recognise the picture that you paint?

It is true that all established churches are Registered Charities, and so can reclaim income tax on certain declared donations (i.e. 'Gift Aided' Donations); but then so can all Registered Charities, including many public schools. (I believe this also includes other, non-Christian faiths including Islamism and Judaism.)

Churches and places of worship are also exempt from Rates and Council Tax, as are houses permanently occupied by Ministers of Religion.

In all other respects, the church pays the same taxes as every other organisation, including VAT (unless VAT Registered), Corporation Tax and Employers NI. Ministers also have to pay NI and Income Tax on their stipends and benefits in the same way that everyone else does.

There is no state subsidy for any church, including the Church of England, although certain Grants can be made by English Heritage for work on Listed Buildings, but those grants are not confined to church buildings.

There is a popular misconception that the church is supremely wealthy, but this is not the case. It is true that The Church of England was given a lot of money by Queen Anne [I believe], in reparation for the destruction of church buildings and theft of church property by Her predecessor, Henry VIII, but most of that has long gone. Indeed, the Commissioners of the Church of England are currently faced with a huge black hole in the church's pension provision for both Ministers and Lay Staff in exactly the same way that the government and some corporations are.

The Church of England does still own a lot of land, especially here in the North East, but any income is used to pay clergy, and for the 'good works' of the church. Individual churches receive no payment from Diocese; rather, each church is required to pay a 'Parish Share' or 'Quota' to the Diocese, which pays for clergy stipends, training, pensions, housing and so forth.

Charitable works by individual churches are paid for by donations to that church. All PCC's (Parochial Church Councils) are responsible for maintaining their own churches, and for paying Surveyors, Architects and other Professionals.

Having said all of that, as the Church of England is the Established Church, there is usually no reason why couples with what is known as a 'qualifying connection' with a parish should not be married in the parish church.

SB

A former colleague of mine got married in church because of the cost. She and her husband had originally planned to get married in one of the local posh hotels, but the cost was astronomical, and a church wedding turned out to be a far cheaper option.

In answer to the original question, another friend of mine and his girlfriend had been together for about 20 years. He needed an operation, which had certain risks attached, and they decided that by far the quickest, easiest and cheapest way of making sure that estates, legacies, next of kin, medical consents and so on were all in place before the operation was a quick, low-key wedding.

No they don't. Why do so many church buildings close? Because their congregation cannot sustain the maintenance. As Swell Box says, there is no income for church buildings other than what's on the plate. If you can't pay the bills - electric, gas, phone, insurance, parish share etc - you close.

Just what I was going to say - the amount of time a close friend of mine has put into fundraising this year just so the church can pay its electricity bill is astounding. There are some very wealthy parishes, but these tend to be found in wealthy villages. Churches in places like inner-city Leeds are far from wealthy and will do anything to make money - phone masts in towers, anyone?

*off topic*!

I'm a little intreguied by the seemingly widespread opinion that those without a religion should not get married in religious buildings, as its hypocritical. Personally I think this only applies to those who are determinedly atheist. After all, they have decided on their 'belief', even if it is to not believe (if that makes sense; I'm being slightly ironic : I'm not sure atheism can be counted as a belief by definition, but at that stage, I don't know what it comes under. ).

I think a far greater proportion of the population are outwardly without a religion, while still culturally, or in their hearts, subscribing to something. I think its telling what a large proportion of the British public will declare their religion as Christianity (71.6% in the 2001 census) without really practising it (the Wikipedia article on Religion in the UK discusses the ins and outs of this fairly well, and the impact of how you ask the question).

My personal conclusion is that a lot of people idenitify with Christianity, without wanting to be part of a/the Church. Whether they identify with it because of culture, tradition, or wanting a big white wedding / a family baptism, doesn't bother me. I think those people who are less active in their faith (or more unsure about it) should still be entitled to access it when they choose. Any sanctimonious dismissal of those people accessing their chosen religion on an occasional basis seems rather unwelcoming, and hardly likely to encourage them to practise it more actively!

Why Church of England?

Indeed it is.

Splinter/stake syndrome . And one of the reasons churches feel so very unwelcoming and scary to me.
Atheism is indeed not a belief or religion, but amazing to see how many feel it must be - hence the jokes people make about having non-stamp-collecting as their hobby, in order to illustrate the difference.

There has been a set of lectures by a bishop on radio 4 over the last week, about people who lose their faith, and from what I can gather, mourn its loss: I've also read many posts on the atheistic subforum of Ravelry (the knitting forum) in which former believers talk about what it has cost them to go their separate ways from their roots - ostracism and rejection being common amongst those who share their experiences: that also, I think, gives some insight into why the less-than-religious may opt to follow expectations rather than rock the boat. It's a very tough thing, to become estranged from one's entire family.

Misti, lest anyone be of the opinion that this kind of thing is widespread, might I gently point out that on this thread no one speaking from a religious perspective has accused anyone of hypocrisy. I have not heard it happen at church either; we tend to take the view that if we see someone occasionally for Banns, weddings and major events that's better than never seeing them at all.

Oh yes, I quite agree. I wasn't intending to imply (perhaps I shouldn't have used to word sanctamonious) that this opinion comes from any group in particular, nor was I really thinking about particular posts on this thread. It was just that a couple of posts made me think about this potential scenario, and some of the frustrations I have encountered with proselytising friends!

Actually I'm getting the giggles thinking about what my dad would say if the other half asked him for permission to marry me- it'd probably go something like "HA! She's YOUR problem now" or "It doesn't make any difference what I say because she'll do as she d_mn well pleases anyway". My dad being the outwardly unsentimental type with a certain type of humour and me having been my own ornery independent self since about the age of two and a half. He's a good bloke is my dad but I know him very well