Dialogue: Sharing love and property as well

By SANDY BURGHAM

Love is in the air and I have recently had a run of weddings to attend. In fact I scored the trifecta with three in a row in March.

Although marriage sat it out for a couple of decades, it seems to be finding favour with the hip and fashionable. I mean, even Madonna is giving it another bash.

And once again women are taking their husband's name after years of stubbornly sticking with that of their Dad or tediously hyphenating and leaving an awkward legacy for their hyphenated children (who one day might marry another hyphenated one forcing someone to cut their losses).

But unlike the past, when weddings stuffed not so squarish pegs into the round holes of kitchen teas, frilly shirts, and three-tiered cakes, each of my friend's weddings were delightfully different, reflecting their own philosophy on what a marriage was all about.

The first was a full-on splendiferous affair on a country estate, traditional in essence until it came to the customary first dance, which typically would have the congregation seizing up with embarrassment at the sight of the happy couple stumbling into the smorgasbord.

These sophisticates had obviously taken private tango lessons, surprising and seducing the receptive crowd with a sultry floorshow.

In the second nuptials, my trendy de facto pals gave each other away after swinging arm and arm into a chic Auckland diner to a remixed version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, their love child proudly sitting atop the groom's shoulders.

And the last couple moderne spared us the ordeal of trying to fathom a hymn we'd never heard of, instead asking us to serenade them with our own rendition of You're Just Too Good To Be True.

We are in the age when bridesmaids make speeches more outrageous than the best man's effort and couples select their own wedding gifts. Thus, it makes sense that if we are now writing our own rules for a wedding, surely that must go for the relationship itself. And indeed some couples may choose not to get married at all.

Which is what the controversial new property relationship legislation has pointed out by giving the thumbs-up to de facto couples who choose not to seal it with a contract.

In one bill it dismisses the suggestion that some relationships of similar character are indeed more equal than others.

Although it carefully focuses on property rather than marriage itself, everyone knows that aside from kids, finances are the key legal issue to be sorted if the marriage contact is breached.

Although not against the romantic notion of a wedding, I cannot see how that makes marriages any more sacred than a long-term committed de facto relationship.

Of course, my married friends beg to differ. They would.

But there are no guarantees in life. Just look at the divorce rate. And if a de facto couple split up it can be equally as tragic.

Spiritual commitment can be given without legal contract. In fact it has nothing to do with legality, and this is where the legislation comes unstuck in practice despite being sound in theory.

Can the cold, clinical left-brain world of law really sit comfortably with the wonderful right-brain rigours of relationships? Not at all.

Our Attorney-General recently made the helpful suggestion that de factos should be discussing the pre-nuptial agreements early on in the relationship. Quite obviously she has never been in the relationship game with a contemporary commitment-phobic male.

Right in the throes of giddy romance that a person may dare to think could last forever, there's one way to ruin it, and that's with a "So where do you see us in a few years?" or "What do you want out of this relationship?" type question.

The answer will be as unsatisfactory as to that question commonly posed to blokes - "What are you thinking about?"

The law will acknowledge a three-year de facto term as it does a marriage when it comes to property.

But still a person doesn't want to be discussing who gets the lounge suite so early in the piece.

What happened to getting to know each other?

The law goes live on February 1, giving punters a comfortable gap in which to jump before Valentine's Day next year.

This will, of course, put a hold on all these marriage festivities I have been enjoying.

And I well imagine that come spring the bars in Parnell will be full of freshly released singles looking to take on another two-and-three-quarter-year term.