Well in England marriage is a choice for everyone.

I know here, many people do not "resist" marriage, they just don't bother. Besides, it's an inordinate waste of money. I suppose (to a cetain degree), it depends on the environment in which children are raised.

My daughter and her partner are not "married" but do have a new baby, 5 months (planned), and I did emphasise that marriage, children etc were all choices that one may or may not decide make in life. But really, I don't think that had much to do with it ... our society is so much different than yours that there is just no comparison.

American society is so weird, all pretence and no substance. I find it quite funny that this subject even warrants a post. Perhaps your laws are different and don't afford the same legal rights to non-married partners. As for gays, those I know, have no desire to formalise their relationships either.

So marriage isn't so much reviled, just not required. Many of my daughter's peers (29) have been with their partners 10+ years, have children, but have just outgrown that need for a big bash or to define their relationships ... time has taken care of that. Also the lack of religious influence in their lives is a major bonus.

NT, here in the US there are many states in which cohabiting partners don't have co-equal rights with married couples. This is true in the majority of the states, if I'm not mistaken.

My guess is that you have no Common Law Marriage as a precedent. Unfortunately where laws do not exist, nor can social change.

Sometimes I treat these posts with distain as I find Americans have absolutely no comprehension of day to day life in ostensibly similar societies, making comparisons, where none can be made.

It's good you're here then.

I must add, that I do have confilicting views ... I did tell my daughter that she could name her child whatever she wished (although, in context, it was a mutual joke at the time ie Johnny Depp). But seriously, I have always baulked at our inclination to assign children the male surname/family name but then I hesitate at making a stand, it may impede genealogy tracking at some future date, if desired. Although my son did change his name to mine, this carries legal consequences, which it shouldn't, but I guess at this point in time not enough people consider it an issue ... perhaps in another 20 or 30 years they will.

I don't know how I feel about surnames. I'm in a long-term relationship with another woman, but being bisexual, I could always end up with a man.

I'll probably never change my surname. Call it old-fashioned, but I want the family name to carry on. When my father dies, I will be the last, I mean the last, living person in our line with the family name. If it does die, I'd like it to at least live out my life. To me it doesn't have as much to do with the patriarchy as it does respect for my family as a whole.

NT, actually there has been no legal recognition of common law marriage in the UK since 1753.

I agree with you that it's more a case of not bothering than actively rebelling (but I see no need to be so rude in saying so).

NT, couples gay or straight have not always had the same rights and protections as married couples in England. The "Civil Partnerships Bill" was only introduced two years ago and apparently common law marriage doesn't actually exist in England.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,1179714,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#United_Kingdom

In the United States there is common law marriage in a few states. I believe the rights and protections vary by state as well. But so far such a union, like marriage, only applies to hetero couples.

Sometimes I treat these posts with distain as I find Americans have absolutely no comprehension of day to day life in ostensibly similar societies, making comparisons, where none can be made.

I am sure that an American is not going to have the same knowledge of day to day life in another country as someone who lives there. Just remember that it goes the other way too. I find some of your generalizations and guesses about American life, and Americans, insulting.

Be that as it may, many ignored the act of 1753 which did not apply to the UK, only to England and Wales. Even in England, the general public were loathe to acquiesce to Church interference, more specifically Anglican. Nonetheless there remains an historical precedent.

Rude? Just because I find American society full of pretence. Claiming freedoms where apparently none exist. Honestly, I am aghast at some of the issues that exist in this forum, issues that I thought were long laid to rest.

ArsenicandEarlGrey: I would have no compunction in retaining my family name should you decide to partner with a male. Moreover, in your case (being the last), I would have no hesitation in assigning your name to any children you might have. I was really only questioning our inclination to assign the male name to children and the legal implications should they decide to change.

l3j: Yet it does exist, in the here and now. Samhita said "Talking about marriage as if it is a choice for everyone leaves people out." which ignores that fact, which is perinent when making such a comment, as it was a UK study.

No point to this if all one wants is a mutual admiration society.

American society is like graffiti, splashed all over the place. We see your news, progammes, dot coms always appear first (unless one delimits by .co.uk, .de, .se , .co.nz etc. I only have to read here to come across attitudes that I find completely alien. So I am sure I have a much clearer picture of your society than visa versa.

The evangelist mentality that holds South Dakota law to ransom. Your country virtually dismissing the general consensus at the UN to wait, "you are either with us or against us" was the basic ultimatum how are these generalisations. Many posts/topics here presume to know what day to day life is like, making comments that distort the intention of studies etc without taking into account laws, cultural attitudes etc within the country of origin. That is irresponsible reporting.

I am just a lone individual, expressing the views of those with whom I have direct contact, so my my comments mean little, but when one aspires to represent a larger voice, along with that position comes an inherent obligation.

Samhita is often guilty of posting irresponsibly and counterproductively. I recall a post about "binge drinking" a term at which she likes to scoff, without any mention of the laws or culture, even the basic demographics that exist in that particular country.

If Samhita is an example, I wouldn't mind more irresponsible counterproductivity in the world.

But, back on topic, I wonder if the UK's less fervent attitude toward marriage is a by-product of its infinitely more civilized attitude toward health care. One's access to affordable health care would never be dependent on marital status in a country that provides such care to all its citizens and long-term residents.

But, back on topic, I wonder if the UK's less fervent attitude toward marriage is a by-product of its infinitely more civilized attitude toward health care. One's access to affordable health care would never be dependent on marital status in a country that provides such care to all its citizens and long-term residents.

I think this is questionable. I think opposition to same-sex marriage is about homophobia and the erosion of the division between church and state in a christian fundamentalist country. This seems to be very much a product of different political cultures.

Of course, universal health care is also attributable to different political cultures, but I'm not sure that the two are closely linked.

I live in Canada, and it's interesting to see how much the American Christian right has influenced the debate about same sex marriage here. Some of wingnuts were pretty directly involved in providing funds, producing anti-same sex marriage leaflets, etc. As far as I'm concerned, this is just one more thing to blame on the United States/Americans.

Yes, I more or less agree. I didn't mean that opposition to same-sex marriage was related to universal health care. I meant that the need for state recognition of same-sex marriage is far more materially pressing in a country with no healthcare, in which those kinds of benefits are often distributed on the bases of marital status. And that in a country such as the UK, where I and my children would be covered by the NHS regardless of marital status, it would be one less major incentive to get married.

Not True, I know that in Spanish-speaking Latin America (maybe also in Brazil, Spain, and Portugal, but I'm not sure), people take both parents' family names. For example, Kos's father's family name is Moulitsas, and his mother's family name is Zúniga; hence, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga. But the system is still sexist because the male name is always first: Moulitsas is Kos's father's patrilinear surname, and Zúniga is his mother's patrilinear surname. Birth certificates tend to list all family names, in a sort of mesh (patrilinear surname first, then mother's patrilinear surname, then paternal grandmother's patrilinear surname, then maternal grandmother's, etc.), but people normally only use their and occasionally their mothers' patrilinear surnames.

I have pretty much the same views as Samhita on marriage. But I wonder about this study. Lots of women in this poll are going to be divorcees or women who wanted to get married, but didn't. If you're in that situation you have to conclude marriage is irrelevant, or that you're a failure. It's not the autonomous rejection of the institution that people might make. It might be a case of social changes influencing attitudes, rather than vice versa.

I have my mom and dad's last names. But my mom's last name isn't her dad's last name, it is her mom's last name. And my brother 'officially' goes by our mom's name.

I usually go with just my dad's last name because its shorter and people dont look at me funny when I say it.

As for marriage - the british women are down right ...right. So many people tell me "if you dont marry him he'll leave you!" ...uh, take a look at divorce rates please? Marriage is more or less a waste of les time.

Has same-sex marriage become legal in the UK since the last time I checked? Since this post stated, "Talking about marriage as if it is a choice for everyone leaves people out," as Not True mentioned, I was just wondering if the laws regarding actual, full-on, non-"Common-Law" marriage had been extended to gay couples since the last time I looked.

NT, you aren't seriously suggesting that the posters here stand with "America" as it is represented in the UN?

Also, people, including Samhita, are free to like or dislike whatever terms they choose. And we DO in fact have that freedom in America.

It's one thing to disagree with someone. It's another to view someone with "disdain," which is pretty arrogant, by the way. It's yet another to condemn people who happen, by accident of birth or other means, to be citizens of any particular country just because you find what some of their fellow citizens say or how they act, to be distasteful. I find Benny Hill's humor distasteful. I find Hugh Grant's 90s-era proclivity for prostitutes distasteful. I find that random British youtube guy distasteful. But I'm a mature and reasonable person, so this doesn't translate into disdain for you simply because you happen, like the persons referenced above, to be British.

l3j: Yet it does exist, in the here and now. Samhita said "Talking about marriage as if it is a choice for everyone leaves people out." which ignores that fact, which is perinent when making such a comment, as it was a UK study.

NT - Same sex marriage is not legal in the UK. Therefore, marriage is not a choice for every one there either and Samhita's comment is applicable.

From your earlier post:

...I find Americans have absolutely no comprehension of day to day life in ostensibly similar societies...

And the one replying to me:

We see your news, progammes, dot coms always appear first (unless one delimits by .co.uk, .de, .se , .co.nz etc. I only have to read here to come across attitudes that I find completely alien. So I am sure I have a much clearer picture of your society than visa versa.

Do you really think that gives you comprehension of the day to day here? Come on. I would never presume to understand the day to day life of a British citizen from the BBC and the Office. I would presume to know a bit about that day to day life having lived there though.

The evangelist mentality that holds South Dakota law to ransom.

Yeah that's a real shame. You may have noticed that we find that disgusting too.

Your country virtually dismissing the general consensus at the UN to wait, "you are either with us or against us" was the basic ultimatum

Don't forget who ran right into Iraq with the Bush administration. Who was that? Oh right! Tony Blair!

how are these generalisations.

How are these generalizations? You are attributing the actions of the vocal, extremist and unfortunately powerful in America to every american citizen. Thanks a lot. This is a large country and at least half of us do not agree with what is going on.

Many posts/topics here presume to know what day to day life is like, making comments that distort the intention of studies etc without taking into account laws, cultural attitudes etc within the country of origin. That is irresponsible reporting.

Hell of a way to argue that fact, by making presumptions about 300 million americans and stating incorrect information about the country you want us to stop presuming about.

The Law Fairy: Actually, when I wrote "Sometimes, ... distain" it was by way of an apology/explanation to you personally, for my previous statement (to which you replied), that American society is weird as you clarified the legal aspect.

But, I do not retract my assertion that Samhita tends to bend/skew issues, and of course she can say exactly as she wishes ... sorry, I was under the impresssion she was striving to be better than the rest. And perhaps I was arrogant because at times I find her writing laced with arrogance ... which I feel is beneath her.

Law Fairy -- exactly. Thanks for saying that, and so well too.

magpie_malone: When I mentioned common law, although it was taken to mean England, I was really referring to broader application of English law eg as a foundation for my own country's laws. We kind of just drifted into de facto relationships being commonplace, so the laws were redefined to reflect (and clarify) this trend.

Alon Levy: Thank you that is interesting. I have been told by my many Cypriot friends, that the father's given name is adopted by any children as their family name and so on down the line.

Kian: I love it ... that is brilliant!