Thursday, September 14, 2006

'til Death us do Part


To quote Oscar Wilde:
‘One should always be in love, that is why one should never marry’

Or - if you prefer the Bumper Book of Jokes for Women: -
‘What do you do to stop a bloke wanting sex all the time?’
Ans: ‘Marry Him’.

Sorry about that one…

I was married once (to Rob). It lasted for 15 years and it was OK really. I don’t regret it. But, it was not a match made in heaven (he was a ja-a-azz fan) and it just sort of died a slow death. Unlike the Mills - McCartneys we are still ‘good friends’.

I won’t get married again. I have no ambition to be the THIRD Mrs Kev.

I don’t believe in third time lucky.


Lesley (age 65 and still working) got married on June 14th. She has lived with Ron for about 25 years. I was invited but I nipped off to Spain. I didn’t fancy the frocks and the insincere hugs. Saw the pics when I got back - Ron wore a pink suit and Lesley had a Leo Sayer perm. Her face looked radiant - Natural Botox?

They came to see me yesterday and they haven’t changed. Well Ron has changed out of the pink suit - thank God.

Commitment is fine - I would definitely consider a Civil Partnership, but it’s still not available to male/ female couples - not fair.

PeterTatchell (our latest national Treasure) agrees with me. He correctly states that this is not equal opportunity - it is legalised discrimination where gays can’t get married and straights can’t have Civil Partnerships.

Can’t be right can it? Why not the same opportunities for everyone?

And can you imagine Kev after his THIRD stag night? Don’t even try!
KAZ

17 Comments:

Anonymous Pete said...

well marriage is or should be a religious ceremony. you can't legislate for belief.

agree about the civil ceremony thing though

5:20 pm  
Blogger The Murphmeister said...

Jaaazz Fan?

Nice!

Mr P. & Mrs Rine are going to tie the knot (Mr P's 3rd knot) in November, so I'll keep you posted.

6:16 pm  
Blogger KAZ said...

Pete: That's the point. Religious folk want to get married in church with a minister. For the rest of us it's not appropriate.
Hence the Civil partnership.

Murph: OOh I hope this doesn't mean you'll feel left out.
Give my very best wishes to the happy couple and keep me informed about 'third time lucky'.

9:46 pm  
Blogger stitchwort said...

There's always a register office marriage - all the legal stuff without the religious stuff. My choice both times (we weren't Buddhists when we got married). Don't know why more people don't do it - and you don't need to spend £10,000 on it.

8:22 am  
Blogger KAZ said...

Stitchwort: Oh yes, Mine was in a register office - however there are subtle differences between this and the 'Civil partnership'.
If they were the same they would be available to all.
Why is it not possible for gay couples to have a register office wedding?
Does anyone know?

9:05 am  
Anonymous NiC said...

Why does marriage have to be a religious ceremony?

Ours wasn't.

It was in a Register office just like a civil partnership. Why gay couples can't just have a register office wedding I don't know (though I suspect its down to the religious types).

9:19 am  
Blogger Geoff said...

We had the cheapest wedding of all time - Register Office, in and out, like going for a crap.

It's only a contract, after all.

3:27 pm  
Blogger KAZ said...

Nic: My wedding was in an ordinary register office in an ordinary street and it was great. Apparently - a Civil partnership does not involve making verbal statements and can take place in an ordinary solicitor's office unlike a marriage.

It's all in the words - someone doesn't want gays to be married and doesn't want heteros to stop being 'married'.

Geoff: Can't say I'm thrilled with your analogy. But it seems to have worked out brilliantly for you two.

4:29 pm  
Blogger Geoff said...

Sorry, Kaz. I've been a bit scatological recently. A few days away will sort me out.

Blogger's punished me with the longest word verification ever.

4:45 pm  
Blogger Lubin said...

I'd probably marry you, if it wasn't for the fact I did a Civil Partnership earlier this year and you're against the idea anyway.

5:02 pm  
Blogger KAZ said...

geoff: I'm a bit of an innocent so I had to look up scatalogy - 'the scientific study of excrement, as in diagnosis by study of the faeces ...interest in or preoccupation with the obscene.

Ah well that raises the tone nicely - enjoy your few days.

Lubin: I would, of course, make an exception for you - if you weren't already spoken for. Shucks!

5:23 pm  
Anonymous Pete said...

Kaz,

I think the concept of marriage is a religious one. Calling a registry office thingy marriage is odd to me.

I'd call registry office weddings a civil partnership and let anyone do them. i have no problems with that.

I'm not religious btw.

6:57 pm  
Blogger KAZ said...

Pete- Sounds fair to me. So when are you going to do it yourself?

9:14 pm  
Blogger DellaB said...

hmmm... I said after my 3rd try turned 'unlucky' - never again - and I've tried it every which way; first was the whole church thing (lasted 1 year) - then we did the registry office, that was better (16 years) - third time we did it at home with a 'marriage celebrant'; got 13 years out of that one!

Now, the man that lives at the other end of the house and I have settled into something that is not quite marriage, but I think it probably comes close to how people are after a while in a relationship (10 years so far, and counting)... but I don't think we are about to go tripping off up the aisle any day soon.

About civil partnerships; why can't people just mind their own business and live and let live. I know several long-term gay relationships, my own daughter being in one of them. The partners need the protection of legal/lawful status - somebody else said 'marriage' was a religious notion - I agree, let those who want to marry, but don't exclude a great many of the population from making a commitment, whatever it is called.

oops, I'll get off the soapbox now.

Thanks for the Blair pic.. very funny! Do you mind if I pinch it for my pics link?

10:53 pm  
Blogger KAZ said...

Hi Dellab: The phrase 'triumph of hope over experience' springs to mind.
You seem to have got it sorted with the 'chap at the other end of the house. Good luck to both of you!

I pinched the pic - so go ahead.

9:05 am  
Anonymous Gert said...

I suspect that the Civil Partnerships thing was brought in because why fight a semantic fight about semantics when the bigger picture is legal recognitions and rights.

By chance I had two diferent conversations with two different people on Thursday both of whom are twice divorced. One is on marriage #3 and the other said "I think he was ex-husband #2, wasn't he, years ago...".

When people marry for the first and maybe the second time, I think they have a hope - if not necessarily an expectation - of death us do part. But when it gets to 3 and 4 I wonder if the hope becomes 'while it lasts' - which I don't think is a bad thing, BTW.

I ought to get married, just because it would be easier than filling in lots of forms for legal stuff. But I can't be arsed, which is stupid.

I can't stand the religious take on it because anybody who knows a bit of history or literature knows that until very recently many marriages were for economic or power reasons and nothing to do with love or even respect.

3:12 pm  
Blogger KAZ said...

Like you - I ought to get married.
But, especially for women of my generation, marriage has so many unfortunate overtones. I'd just like to sit down at a solicitor's desk and sign a piece of paper - then get on with life as usual.

4:04 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home