Mums' absence from marriage certificates shows we're still wedded to inequality

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/08/mums-marriage-certificates-wedded-inequality

Version 0 of 1.

There's often a bit of controversy at a wedding, but even the most inappropriate joke in the best man's speech pales into insignificance when viewed alongside the questions the registrar has to ask – or not ask – of the bride and bridegroom's parents. This is because a marriage certificate has space to record only the fathers' names and occupations. It might be 2014, but mothers are still airbrushed out of history on the official record of the event.

What is shocking isn't so much that this continues to be the way things are done by the register office; it is that until now no one has even bothered to question the practice. Now, though, there is an online petition backed by, among 26,600 others, the campaigning feminist Caroline Criado-Perez. I have just signed it, and I urge you to do the same.

But the fact is that the anomaly isn't really the fault of the register office: that organisation only reflects society as a whole, and we're all part of that. The sad truth is that while we have moved recently to iron out the inequalities in the marriage system vis a vis same-sex couples, where heterosexual unions are concerned we still woefully buy into ancient patriarchal traditions. Our wedding ceremonies centre on a young woman in a white dress that symbolises her virginity, who is "given away" by her father before changing her surname to that of her new partner. At the reception afterwards he speaks on behalf of both of them, and when the party ends they drive away to a life of wedded bliss with the groom, invariably, at the wheel.

Symbolism matters, and all the markers in most weddings continue to underline an outdated status quo which perceives women as owned, invisible and silent. If we are looking for a barometer of feminism, I can think of nothing better to monitor than the behaviour at the nation's nuptials: change there will herald the real revolution that seems to have eluded us for so long. Right now there are a few stirrings: some brides are being "given away" by both parents (to get it completely right, of course, both bride and groom need to be given away by their parents); some women (but really, far fewer than I would have expected when I made this decision for myself 25 years ago) are keeping their birth surname; and some are standing up to make their own speech at the reception after the ceremony.

Reforming the system so that mothers are recorded on their children's marriage certificates – something which, incidentally, has already been changed in both Scotland and Northern Ireland – would wave the flag for change. And it is not only about fairness; it's about people's place in history as well: the records kept by the register office are the one place where we have a kind of immortality, because the entries are written in special, heavily leaded ink that doesn't fade, and they are kept forever. It is the first place researchers go to find out about social trends and family life through the centuries; the fact that women's lives have not been properly recorded there speaks volumes about the depth of our country's patriarchy, and how slow we have been and continue to be to shake it off.

In recent decades, feminists thought and believed that equality would come about when the big, headline issues had been tackled – equal pay, equal opportunities at work, the smashing of glass ceilings and more women bosses. All that mattered, of course, but now we've started to realise that the small things count every bit as much. That is why campaigns such as the Everyday Sexism project are so important. And it is why the push to get a couple of extra boxes inserted on the nation's marriage certificates is crucial, ground-breaking work.