Now that civil unions are an option for couples wanting to celebrate and register their commitment, I wonder what will happen with the traditional marriage bits and pieces, such as:
Woman changes last name to man's
I suspect most people who get civil unions, regardless of sexuality, will keep their own names. It has been startling to me though, in talking to women getting married, that very very few are keeping their names. Many proclaim themselves to be in great anticipation of being Mrs X instead of Miss/Ms Y. Personally I find that hard to identify with - my name is my name, I don't see why going through a ceremony of commitment with my partner should change that. I don't lecture them about their choice, I'm just glad we have one these days, but I do find it a bit odd. No doubt they think me odd too.
People say "think of the children" - well heaps of children have different surnames to one or tuther of their parents, to their siblings, to other members of their families. I think there are much bigger things that affect the mental, emotion and physical health of our children than whether everyone in their immediate family has the same last name.
Woman's family pays for wedding
Lots of couples seem to pay for their own celebrations these days, or hit up both families. But even so a lot of women's families seem to feel obliged to pay for the shindig, alone. With this comes a certain amount of control as well - guest list, nature of the event, location, food, you name it, the woman's family often wants either a say or to make the decision entirely. I think we need to shift to a perspective that sees money donated by families to couples as a gift, not a purchase of certain rights. It should be up to the couple what they want to do on their day, not decided by family committee.
The terms husband and wife
Wife certainly has negative connotations (especially when my-least- favourite-derivative-of-any-word-ever, "wifey", is used in its place) to do with staying at home, keeping yourself nice, and ironing, at least to my feminist mind. Personally I prefer partner. Partly because it keeps people guessing about whether my partner will turn out to be a man or a woman, heh heh. But largely because it simply doesn't have the baggage.
Woman being "given away"
Lots of brides these days seem to be "walked" by their fathers, or mothers, or both, or some other person entirely, rather than "given away". So the old way has already started to fall away, but I firmly hope that the advent of civil unions deliver the final kick to topple this patronising tradition. Unless of course the person being walked is too blitzed to walk at all, in which case it is just a practical consideration that someone prop them up (although there would be issues about consent, but as we used to say in Crim 201 - drunken intent is still intent ;-) )
Overall I predict, and fervently hope, that civil unions will start to break down these archaic approaches to cementing your relationship. Those "alternative lifestylers" will infect us all with their carefree attitudes and some day I wish that my children can happily celebrate their commitment (not to each other of course) without the tags and baggage that have dogged marriage for so long. I intend to put dosh aside from the day they are born, and then when they announce their impending commitment ceremony, of whatever brand, will give them the sum to spend on it as they wish. Honest.
Let's look forward to at time when marriage loses the last of its property transaction trimmings!
