BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Marriage

  
  

Page: (1)2345

 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:16 / 30.09.03
In this thread in conversation a few of us have been discussing marriage. After a brief exchange with May Tricks we decided to start a thread here, mostly because a lot of people seemed to have an opinion on it.

So far the discussion's mostly focused on the institution of marriage- its relationship with the state and religion and I'd like to see that furthered. Does marriage mean anything to people here, is it something that you plan to do if you haven't already? Why is it important now?

In addition it wouldn't be amiss I think to discuss alternative models for long term partnerships. Our relationships and the way that they relate to individual growth, this certainly seems to relate to what people have already said...

Kit Cat says that marriage sometimes appears to function as a rite that attempts to bind something that isn't susceptible to bondage

May is interested in marriage and monogamy- whether marriage is necessary and long term relationships that are open.

Persephone is mainly against marriage as a state-sanctioned institution and Kegboy points out that marriage is hard. What is the purpose of marriage? It's clearly not necessary now despite the uneven legal rights but people do get married all the time. Clearly that implies a cultural background.
 
 
Persephone
15:25 / 30.09.03
Here's the thing that I raised in the Late Shift: can there be a separate consideration of "long-term monogamous" relationships vs. "married" relationships, given that the latter rather specifically validates the former?
 
 
grant
16:13 / 30.09.03
Well, the main difference between a common-law marriage (Long Term Monogamous) and a churched marriage is that the couple didn't get up in front of God and Everybody and promise to be with each other forever. It's a private thing, not a community thing. There may be an implied promise, but nothing you can point to and say, "But you said! But you said!"
In other words, community makes the ritual.
Personally, I'd put a city hall wedding (just turn up, fill in the forms and leave) a lot closer to a common law one than a church one on the big continuum. Unfortunately, the Law disagrees with me.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:19 / 30.09.03
Kit-Cat's point interests me - to put it very simply, I think maybe marriage is a promise you make when times are good about how you will behave when times are bad. At the moment, we live a certain and rather short amount of time, and the business of committing yourself to a long-term relationship - especially one which will produce children - demands an investment of self in terms of time, money, effort, energy, and so on. What the marriage promise says is that when the going gets tough - as it inevitably will from time to time, you won't bail. You'll put more time, more energy, and more effort into it, and make something work. The sense of marriage being a partnership as well as a loving bond is one we seem to be losing.

One of the things I've liked about some of the wedding services I've been to recently has been the presiding official - be that a religious or civil functionary - bringing the assembled guests in, and saying to them that they're also making a pledge. It's not about free bubbly, it's about committing to the relationship and saying that you will support it, rather than try to undermine it. In other words, okay, kids, they're doing this, and you may not like it but from this moment on if one of them comes to you and says they're not sure they can make the marriage work, your job is to help, not say "well, maybe you should just go to Bali and get laid".

I think we labour under the illusion of separateness. We like to imagine ourselves as individuals making singular choices in a vaccuum. It's nonsense. Family and friends can make or break a marriage.

So it's not about binding yourself to love, it's about binding yourself to behave lovingly. I've seen marriages which have continued to work as partnerships long after passion has fled - and in that function, they've found a new identity which breeds love all over again.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:00 / 30.09.03
I, or rather we, are not married. Though I suspect it may happen some day. I like weddings, the public declaration and celebration of love. But I don't think that a bit of paper or a ceremony is going to either strengthen or weaken my relationship. I'd just see it as irrelevant as I'm already committed. Thats a bit naive, perhaps, but it is how I feel now.

As to being suspicious of marriage, given it's history, I can sympathise with that but I don't share that feeling. It overly politicises a personal decision, IMO.
 
 
Papess
17:16 / 30.09.03
I think we labour under the illusion of separateness. We like to imagine ourselves as individuals making singular choices in a vaccuum. It's nonsense~Nick

Whereas I have not formulated my opinions in a proper Headshoppy manner yet, I would just like to remark that I believe this to be a vital point that Nick makes. We are all invaribly connected to one another, and can increase our performance and health by intereacting with one another, and vice versa if we are not careful. No one lives in a vaccum, indeed.

This brings two qestions to mind, though.

One: Does our connection to one another then give polygamy more leverage? (And as a side issue to that, is the question of polygamous relations being mostly of males having many wives, not the other way around)

Two: Is it possible that in marriage, one can still remain an individual and still be part of the "team" so to speak. (I think this is an age old question.)

My interest in this discussion is to evolve the concept of marriage itself. Mostly by seeking to develop some model of a relationship that is stable yet leaves enough room for personal evolution. Is this possible in a marriage, or is marriage trapping the self into the frozen image your mate has of you? Then again, this could be said of all relations, right?

I am slowly convincing myself that marriage is just an attitude.
 
 
Persephone
17:31 / 30.09.03
That's interesting, grant. Do I have this right? So you do feel that marriage is something not entirely personal, but an extension into the community? And if you were to value different types of marriage, the civil ceremony would be somewhat less serious than the church ceremony?

May, I think you asked this in the Late Shift, but let me ask you: Are you talking about monogamy or marriage? Because I'm reading your line of questioning as an exploration of monogamy --i.e., a possible evolution of the concept of monogamy?
 
 
Papess
17:54 / 30.09.03
Yes, good distinction, Persephone.

The evolution of monogamy is more likely what I mean. I just do not like the word monogamy because it is burned in peoples minds as meaning having sex with only one partner rather than just the aspect of devotion to one partner and yet still having more sexual partners, if desired.

So yes, the "Evolution of Monogamy", please! - to dust off it's lousy image of "the ball and chain" and sexual drudgery for an eternity to one person.
 
 
Cat Chant
18:05 / 30.09.03
Marriage is a financial and legal state which affects your citizen and legal rights. I have recently been made acutely aware of this by looking at getting my girlfriend into the UK: we would have to be able to prove to the immigration authorities that she and I had lived together in a "relationship akin to marriage" - by which they clearly state they do not mean a committed and loving long-term monogamous relationship (although you must not be in any other sexual relationships), they mean that you must be able to prove you are a single financial entity (joint accounts, shared property).

Lurid: I'm not sure it is possible to 'overly politicize' a political/legal status granted to certain forms of sexual (and in fact parental) relationships and not others. It is possible to be legally privileged enough to be able to consider marriage or non-marriage a personal choice, but that's a different matter.
 
 
Cat Chant
18:08 / 30.09.03
More thoughts later, but I do apologize if I get overly emotional in this thread. It's a touchy topic for me for all sorts of reasons and there are some specific marriages I am specifically angry with at the moment, none of which involve anyone on the board, so I will try to remain reasonable.
 
 
Papess
18:31 / 30.09.03
I would like to note on the subject of marriage, that in the province where I live in, Quebec, it is illegal for a woman to change her "maiden name" to that of her husband's in marriage. However progressive it may seem, it does not give a choice, which still sets us back, IMO.

These "advancements" for womens' liberation can be quite extreme for some. There are instances where elderly couples have moved to this province and the wife was forced change her name back to her maiden name for legal purposes.

That just seems like the same control tactics over women in reverse, by the state.
 
 
Persephone
18:52 / 30.09.03
Oh, goody. Because I'm obviously in this thread with my big fat agenda, which is to detach marriage, which I think is a rotting corpse, from monogamy, which I think is okay. I am being a little bit funny about the rotting corpse, by the way.

I'm hearing that what you want is a long-term non-monogamous relationship, right? You're very right in identifying that prevailing opinion hews toward the monogamous end of long-term relationships. And as Nick said: as much as you want to make your personal decisions on a personal basis, there are a lot of prewritten scripts that you can just pick up. Revising those scripts is a matter of very tricky negotiation... but then again, so is using those scripts as is. Because no script can cover everything. I don't naturally want to only have sex with one person for the rest of my life. I've chosen that path. Or I should say, I choose that path continuously; there is such a thing as temptation, still. But even in this case, it's not a simple on-off, yes-no thing. It's more like a process of constantly testing the edges of the envelope. Like I know that romantically kissing another person is, for us, over the line, definitely. Heavy flirting is not. Dreaming about romantically kissing another person is not. Before I get too far into the territory of too much information, the point I'm trying to make is that these lines are not natural. They're negotiated. Probably the more original your negotiations, the more they will have to be watched over and defended.

Like Harriet Vane with her lover. She thought that she was living on the outside of convention; but in his mind, he was keeping her in convention's horrible vestibule.
 
 
The Strobe
19:03 / 30.09.03
I whole heartedly agree with Nick: It's not about free bubbly, it's about committing to the relationship and saying that you will support it, rather than try to undermine it.

To throw another conundrum into the works: what about that peculiar rite that is engagement, then? It's saying "I, at some point within a reasonable length of time, perhaps when we have enough money, wish to marry you. Until then, though, we may as well behave as married though we are not". And in some families this is accompanied by great fanfare and stuff even though the real thing to celebrate comes later. I mean, what's the point? It stems from history, as it were, but there is no longer really the stigma with breaking an engagement that there was (apart from upsetting one's grandparents). So what's the point?

I'm actually quite supportive, but more in the sense of it being a trial before placing that final full stop. I'd probably advocate long engagements - by the time one is married, everybody else should have thought you were anyway, you know? Not this brief "right, let's do it, let's get the money together, we got it all, let's go!", but more of a "let's give it a go. Give it time". It might have been seen as delaying, but given that more people commit to long-term monogamy (without marriage) than ever before, I thing it's probably a sign of a healthy understanding of what one's in for.

There's also I'd guess, the thing where marriage has become another stepping stone in society after graduation/work and before kids. Again, that's been largely superceded in society, but I think the last thing it should ever be is a tick in the box. Many people just can't stand the thought of it, especially when young, but now there's no onus for them to seek out husbands as young as say, our great-grandmothers, grandmothers (and sometimes even our mothers) had to.

Is this helping? Am I going anywhere?
 
 
cusm
20:49 / 30.09.03
Marriage is a partnership, as previously stated, and a promise to keep to that partnership even in ill times. The wedding itself is a ritual that serves to add weight to the promise, and to elicit the help of the community to keep it. For really, its a tough thing, and can use all the help it can get.

But why do it? Well, for purely practical reasons, its quite handy to have someone you know you can always depend upon to be there for you when times get rough. You'll never be alone, there will always at least be that other person (lifespan withstanding). Should you choose to raise a family and keep a house, its substantially easier to do with a dedicated partner than without. Certainly, there are other models of comminity living that can be applied instead, but the model of marriage is the simplest. So from practical uses, the institution survives because it is effective. Romantic notions aside, I believe the institution of marriage is a fundamentally practical one that does not even require love. Certainly love is helpful, but if the promise is kept in good faith, the marriage continues to work even without it. For really, you're there for the physical benefit of eachother and your children first. That's what you promised for, and that is what will benefit if you keep to that promise.

So having just dispelled the romantic elements of this partnership, I'll note next that marriage does not necessarily require monogamy. Monogamy is useful for knowing for certain who your children are, something that can be called into question should a woman keep multiple partners. But this is not so important in the modern day of birth control and genetic testing. Monogamy is also useful in ensuring that the emotional needs of your partner are fulfilled, but is still not a requirement. It begs the question: If you can fulfill the physical and emotional needs of your partner, maintain the household and needs of children (if any), and avoid the dangers of unwanted pregnancy, disease, or social entanglements, what reason is left to not enjoy multiple partners if desired?

Of that, my wife and I asked the same question, and came to the sensible answer that really there wasn't any reason not to. So, monogamy is not a part of our marriage. We have rules for engagements with others, and to ensure the needs of each other are met first, and these replace the oath of monogamy that ordinarily comes with marriage. And it all works just fine.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:13 / 30.09.03
At the moment, we live a certain and rather short amount of time, and the business of committing yourself to a long-term relationship - especially one which will produce children - demands an investment of self in terms of time, money, effort, energy, and so on. What the marriage promise says is that when the going gets tough - as it inevitably will from time to time, you won't bail.

Well, yes, that's what the marriage *promise*, or more precisely the marriage *vow*, does, but it isn't what *marriage* does. At least, not necessarily. Marriage makes bailing slightly more difficult, at least theoretically, and means that bailing requires the services of a lawyer, although one is increasingly able to extricate oneself from marriage with a smaller investment of time and money.

Conversely, it is progressively harder to escape responsibility for raising children. Theoretically at least, even the deadbeatiest of dads is supposedly legally liable in some way, at least unless decided otherwise. So, the obligation of mutual support in childrearing is assumed by law outside of marrige, while the decision to stay together is affected progressively less *by* marriage.

So, what does marriage stand for? As Deva says, it acts as a way to define in legal terms the relationship of two people, with implications for tax, legalities, immigration and so on. Two people can live together and/or raise children together without being married, and by the same token two people can be married without staying together, and can fulfil, as it turns out, the generally assumed functions of a married couple (cohabitation, sexual companionship, monogamy, amity) without "living as a married couple" in the eyes of the law. This seems particularly acute if the couple in question do not have the obviosu method of expressing marriage, by getting married...
 
 
Papess
21:19 / 30.09.03
I might be way off on the mark here in defining this, but does monogamy - which I take to mean long-term partnership - necessarily mean it is err..monoamorous?? I am confused a bit. Cusm, you seem to imply that is the case.

Which is it? Or is it both. A Polyamorous Marriage?
 
 
gingerbop
21:51 / 30.09.03
The possibility of an open-marriage is one that rationally makes sense to me, but practically, is another matter. I would not be comfortable with a husband coming home, i ask how his day was, and he replies "Oh great, had that secretary round the back of the office again. Fantastic." A marriage should be based on honesty, yes, but i think some things are best left.

Being signed into a religion that I have no faith in seems ludicrus, but is there any other option which allows the legal rights of a couple? Things like access to them in hospital when they're dying etc. The ideal would be a gay marriage equivelant, or as Paleface said, long engagements. But it seems silly to celebrate the possibility of something you do not intend to carry out.

It does feel much like a tick-box. My first enquiry about marriage was when my sister was 18, and i asked "why havent her and richard got married yet?" I must have been 7. So theres gotta be some brainwashing going on somewhere along the line. I've always imagined myself married in the end, but never really in a permenant relationship with a woman. Im not entirely sure if this is to do with my sexuality, or marriage.

And then theres the (sort of) science of it. We only produce P.E.T, the love-drug or whatever it may be, for about 4 years with the same partner, and naturally as a spiecies we're "serially monogomous." Committing to a contract, when the odds are stacked against you- its suprising that 60% succeed. But as Nick said, Its about loving, and then falling in love again.
 
 
cusm
22:00 / 30.09.03
I suppose I am considering monogamy and monoamory as the same here. What is the difference? If polygamy is having multiple wives and polyamory multiple partners, than I suppose what we have is monogamous but polyamorous as we keep the primary partner first but allow for secondaries.

Eh. I call it an open marriage, or just refer to ourselves as swingers or something like that. The terminology is easier that way and people understand what to expect.
 
 
Persephone
22:02 / 30.09.03
Well, this is interesting! I was checking to see if I really did know what monogamy means...

Main Entry: mo·nog·a·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
Etymology: French monogamie, from Late Latin monogamia, from Greek, from monogamos monogamous, from mon- + gamos marriage, from gamein to marry
Date: 1612
1 archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
2 : the state or custom of being married to one person at a time
3 : the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time

I didn't know that the word monogamy had anything to do with marriage. I thought that that "-gamy" part had to do with gametes... when I said "monogamy," I meant that last definition.
 
 
Persephone
22:07 / 30.09.03
Will wonders never cease...

Main Entry: gam·ete
Pronunciation: 'ga-"mEt also g&-'mEt
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin gameta, from Greek gametEs husband, from gamein to marry
Date: 1886
: a mature male or female germ cell usually possessing a haploid chromosome set and capable of initiating formation of a new diploid individual by fusion with a gamete of the opposite sex
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:16 / 01.10.03
I'm not sure it is possible to 'overly politicize' a political/legal status granted to certain forms of sexual (and in fact parental) relationships and not others. - Deva

Yes, of course. Absolutely right. I suppose I was trying to make the point that a couple's choice to marry, while part of a political institution, is not a political act. If I choose to marry, I don't think I am saying anything about the rights of marriage and to whom they should extend.

I say this partly because I was recently at a wedding in which I was asked, having been identified as a trouble making lefty, whether I objected to the marriage on political grounds. And it seemed to me at the time that that would have been innappropriate. Not in the sense that I wasn't about to denounce the groom, at the reception, as a lackey of patriarchal oppression but in the sense that the couple seemed to be making a very personal decision.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:53 / 01.10.03
I'd say that many of the legal aspects of marriage are an attempt to codify the promise. For example, if you're married, you have rights regarding the treatment of your partner if they are hospitalised and unable to speak for themselves. You have entrusted your life to that person already, and they are deemed to have a greater right to speak for you - and to speak for the partnership (although there's a danger there; the partnership taking on a life of its own over either of the partners, and because of that, ceasing to function...)

That society defines who is permitted to engage in marriage according to preconceptions about legitimate sexualities is perhaps more about society than about the institution, though you cannot in truth clearly separate the two. Still, the notion of a legally-sanctioned and embedded joining of lives doesn't in and of itself imply heteropatriarchy, and may be a very necessary aspect of society. It's possible we'll move past the whole idea - but I'm not sure. Trust, security, and companionship are very human needs.
 
 
Sax
10:26 / 01.10.03
More on this when I've more time to write, but for the record: since April 2000, there has been no such thing as married tax allowance - married people pay exactly the same tax levels as single people. So there is no financial gain in getting married at all.
 
 
cusm
14:14 / 01.10.03
Actually, in the states married people who both work pay more tax. The higher combined income raises your tax bracket, which increases the tax rate. So, you're better off fileing seperately if you both work.

But there is still a nice new child credit, so you are still bribed to breed.
 
 
Ex
15:26 / 01.10.03
One of the things I've liked about some of the wedding services I've been to recently has been the presiding official - be that a religious or civil functionary - bringing the assembled guests in, and saying to them that they're also making a pledge. It's not about free bubbly, it's about committing to the relationship and saying that you will support it, rather than try to undermine it.

At first reading I agreed that was a terribly nice function of marriage (as a public ceremony, and a culturally sanctioned institution) - that you're acknowledging the social aspect of relationships and expecting others to pitch in and help.
But now I'm thinking that this is exactly why I feel nervous at the weddings of my friends. What exactly is the social contract I'm signing up for by attending (and subsequently, by recognising their relationship as 'married')? Is it simply not undermining the union - not actively buying them a ticket to Bali, as Nick suggests? I feel there's more, and it differs from person to person - and the bride may have very different ideas from the bride’s mother, or the bridesmaids, or the guests (although hopefully the bride has roughly similar ideas to the groom). Marriage feels like it has a big but vague impact; it’s very hard to say what it means. Some of the things that various people have expected me to do by attending/recognising a marriage:
- lend moral support to the union
- acknowledge the relationship as more important than the other relationships in the individual's lives
- acknowledge the relationship as more important than all the non-married couples we know
- sign up to the idea that monogamous, heterosexual couples are the base unit of society and a Good Thing
- see marriage as a natural end-point, sign of maturity, permanent (and thus virtuous) welding, the redemption of sex from sordidness etc

These expectations make me a bit itchy. I feel as though my support is being assumed/involuntarily drafted - which happens all over the place, but seems to come into sharp focus at weddings. When I probably just turned up to deliver a hastily-wrapped pasta-pot, a spot of luck and some bad dancing.
I think all the participants probably mean different things, by marrying and by attending, and they don't all square.
Sparking off Lurid Archive:
the couple seemed to be making a very personal decision.
I agree, but I feel that other people then take that and make what they will of it.
Anyway, I didn't mean this as an attack. One of the problems is that the marriage is terribly socially important and very under-discussed - it feels incredibly rude to ask, especially the people who are participating. I feel nervous criticising the institution in case married people on the list will feel personally attacked. So this thread is a good, but a delicate thing, and I don’t want to shoot it into flames.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
17:30 / 01.10.03
ooh, interesting.

"Still, the notion of a legally-sanctioned and embedded joining of lives doesn't in and of itself imply heteropatriarchy, and may be a very necessary aspect of society. It's possible we'll move past the whole idea - but I'm not sure. Trust, security, and companionship are very human needs."

I think Nick and May have picked up something useful here. In western/judeo-christian-inspred societies, the institution of marriage stands not as a choice to be made by some and not others, but as an indicator of the best/only valid kind of relationship.

To critique this isn't neccessarily to deny the desireability (for some/many) of long-term, openly-stated/community-involving, monogamous commitment. But to try and divorce this choice (ho) from the instituion, from the assumption that this only 'truly' happens within marriage.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
17:43 / 01.10.03
On the personal choice thing. Despite being reasonably sure that marriage isn't for me/having difficulties with it, I'm often very emotional at friends' weddings, went to one a couple of weeks ago and bawled...

Which i think is about the transcendance of the moment. Which they chose to do, as they're Christian, in a church setting. But which was much more, for me, at that moment, about someone I love having made a wonderful fulfilling choice and seeing her electrically happy.

But again, this transcendance in my mind has very little to do with the institution, and much more to do with the people/emotion expressed, with *their choices for themselves* being validated.

People who get married may well not be attempting any kind of privileging of their relationship. (probably aren't in fact. though, to be fair, some are.), and may be all about that transcendent moment/commitment. Marriage is one way to make that statement.

But then I always come back to the point that some people are able to make their statement this way if they choose, and some aren't. And that while it's the shorthand for 'good relationship', this constitutes an invisibilising/undermining of many other ways of conducting relationships...

I guess at the point where it's one of many, equally-validated relationship statuses, is when I'll stop finding it a difficult subject.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone, i'm really enjoying this thread.
 
 
grant
21:00 / 01.10.03
Wow. Turn your back for a second, and a thread blossoms.

Anyway, way up top, Persephone asked:
Do I have this right? So you do feel that marriage is something not entirely personal, but an extension into the community? And if you were to value different types of marriage, the civil ceremony would be somewhat less serious than the church ceremony?


On the first, yes. In pretty much exactly the sense Nick described.
On the second, not exactly.
The "City Hall" marriage I was talking about is one that I've had acquaintances go through, and it's hardly a ceremony at all. It's four people spending 15 minutes waiting in line and 5 minutes signing a piece of paper. Maybe with a party afterwards, but not necessarily. It's basically cashing in on the cultural privilege without going through the communal ritual -- allowing the State to stand in for the community, which just ain't right.

My opinions have largely been formed as someone who has performed a few weddings for couples who are, for one reason or another, uncomfortable with having a ceremony in a church but not quite willing to be married by an unfamiliar civil servant. I've never done a same-sex commitment ceremony, but would be perfectly willing to do so... as long as there's a sense of actual commitment, and a community involvement.

The paradigm for "community involvement" for me is the Quaker ceremony, in which there is no celebrant, but every member of the congregation acts as witness to the union. I don't think there are necessary duties for anyone out in the crowd, but I do think they're all participating in the marriage. Not just the wedding, but the marriage itself. Even if only by watching from the sidelines.

What Sax writes...
since April 2000, there has been no such thing as married tax allowance - married people pay exactly the same tax levels as single people. So there is no financial gain in getting married at all.
...is comforting, but fails to take into account the stuff surrounding insurance policies and rights to inheritance.

Common-law marriage is interesting in this respect, since (in my view) it assumes that after a while, the community becomes naturally invested in a couple-as-a-couple with or without a ritual, so all the financial rights should come naturally after a certain period of time.
 
 
Persephone
22:42 / 01.10.03
I think that I got the same feeling as you, Ex. I like this, and I think that it's right and proper:

I think all the participants probably mean different things, by marrying and by attending, and they don't all square.

In my ideal world, there would be no standard meaning to marriage, monogamy, or anything else. I mean, obviously there would be sort of "meaning clouds" that would allow people to generally communicate and say pass the butter and so forth; but it would be understood more that meaning was not exactly fixed, that we would be constantly negotiating what we mean by this or that. I suppose that sounds tiring. But you wouldn't always have to be horse-trading. You would just keep open in your mind that there might be a difference here or there.

But then I always come back to the point that some people are able to make their statement this way if they choose, and some aren't.

That's what bothers me the most, too. This reminds of how Ganesh says that we need more labels. Strictly from a political/legal standpoint, I think that there should be many, many ways to register different partnerships ...or I should say relationships, and not assume that it takes two and only two to tango. People should be able to register as single, if they want to.

allowing the State to stand in for the community

This is key. But again, that this convenience is only offered to some & not others.

I think that it is very possible for two people to make a commitment to each other & eschew the community. Some people are like that. Radix & I have a whole winter holiday that we invented ourselves. It's not any less meaningful to us because we're the only two people who know about it.

In sum: I think that the state should work to attain equality of rights across the board --either by recusing itself entirely in the matter of personal relationships, or by providing an exhaustive plurality of options. Then let the people --including but not exclusively communities, churches, and the like-- be as inventive as they can.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:13 / 02.10.03
Two things, and I hope it's okay to bring a personal anecdote into this. Firstly:

Marriage, as it currently stands, is a system whereby a heterosexual couple register with the State the fact that their sex lives, their financial/legal existence, and their parenting arrangements, are all interlinked in the only way which the State will recognize. I am always surprised when talking about marriage with straight friends how often they will say 'we don't need a piece of paper to prove our commitment, it's not about the legal rights', etc, and yet still choose to express their monogamous commitment to each other by, again, registering with the State the fact that their experience of each other fits the only template the State will recognize. I realize that 'marriage', to people who have that option, means a lot more than the legal/civil status it confers: but to people who don't have the option, there often seems to be a sort of doublethink going on.

I'm with Persephone on this one. As things stand, there is a need to be able to register relationships with the state (for inheritance rights, rights to mourn, parenting rights, etc). But those relationships and the forms in which they can be registered should be multiplied, ad infinitum. There's a really good feminist legal theorist called Drucilla Cornell, who does interesting work on precisely these sorts of issues, and one of her examples is that it should, for example, be possible for three women, none of whom are in a sexual relationship with each other, to register as co-parents of a child.

The other thing I wanted to say was in answer to Lurid's:
If I choose to marry, I don't think I am saying anything about the rights of marriage and to whom they should extend.

See, because I think you are. I think that by choosing to use the "marriage" package, rather than making up your own package (having a non-legal commitment ceremony plus making wills in each other's favour?), you are lending weight to the visibility of marriage and reinforcing the idea that it's the only option that needs to be taken seriously. This might not be the case if it weren't the only legal option, but it is. Like BiP said:

this constitutes an invisibilising/undermining of many other ways of conducting relationships...

I do think that people's choices impact on the way other people experience themselves. For example, the existence of lesbian parenting undermines the idea that parenting is inherently and unbreakably linked to a biological relationship to a child, and the idea that good parenting must provide a role model of a heterosexual relationship, which will change the way that a heterosexual couple who have biologically parented a child feel about their relationship to that child. (I personally think that this is a good thing, but there are a lot of angry people who think it's very wrong - or, to return to the topic of the thread, that the idea of 'gay marriage' undermines what 'marriage' is all about. It's not just a simple add-on to a working model, it changes the way the model works in the first place.)

Okay, so here is the personal anecdote. My sister got married last February (coincidentally, the same month that I started a [theoretically non-monogamous] same-sex relationship with a foreign national 27 years older than me). I have been getting progressively more and more unhappy about it ever since.

If I step back from it, I am happy for my sister. For her, the wedding (and now, her pregnancy) are huge accomplishments and a 'happy ending' to a life full of struggle. They're a sign that she has survived all manner of bad shit and has been able to make a happy, adult life for herself and to create a family in which the bad shit will not have to be repeated. And I'm happy about all that, but the central place of marriage as a sort of metaphor in that narrative is very difficult for me, because it is as if my objections to marriage - my lack of belief in or investment in that metaphorical system - have to become an attack on my sister's achievements. That is, I have to participate in my sister's narrative, and countersign her belief in marriage, in order to be part of my own family.

FOr example: her second and third questions to me after I got together with Jenny were: "When are you getting married?" and "If you could fuse your ova together and have a baby, would you?"

She knows perfectly well that I don't believe in marriage, I don't want children, and I don't think biological parenting is superior to adoption. So the questions were like: obviously now that you've met someone, you'll want your life to be just like mine, because that's what everybody wants, and because those are the only grounds on which I can communicate with you. It's not that her marriage is something personal to her - if it were, why would she drag two sets of families and friends into it and make sure she can't change her mind without giving the courts proof that her relationship is in a bad enough state that she can have permission to divorce?

I guess it boils down to this. For her marriage to mean what she wants it to mean, it has to have a particular conceptual and cultural weight, which is precisely the conceptual and cultural weight which I want to deny it, because it denies me any space to express my own experience outside that conceptual system.

I don't know how much sense that makes to anyone. I'm enjoying this thread, by the way, and look! My rage has departed!
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:50 / 02.10.03
I think it's clear that everyone has a slightly different if not very different perception of marriage. The problem, I suspect, is that marriage has two conflicting sides- on one hand you can say that it's a vow to a person that you'll stick around and totally ignoring the fact that it might go wrong, that's a very lovely and honorable thing to say to someone. On the other you have a form of control, a commitment to one person but also to the state and the community. Marriage becomes a convention and a tool to box people in and more importantly (from my point of view) historically it is a device to control women.

This seems to me incredibly important-
you are lending weight to the visibility of marriage and reinforcing the idea that it's the only option that needs to be taken seriously

This is the tragedy of marriage. Who doesn't secretly want a wedding? Well, okay, I love weddings, even the tragic and awful types where you sit next to someone you despise because what's a wedding without tension? Back to the point... there's a terrible conflict between the practical purpose of marriage, an institution with a history littered by control issues, and the ideal of marriage that is demonstrated through the idyllic wedding ceremony. You support not only the state but the very notion that women are their husband's property.

For her marriage to mean what she wants it to mean, it has to have a particular conceptual and cultural weight, which is precisely the conceptual and cultural weight which I want to deny it, because it denies me any space to express my own experience outside that conceptual system

Well marriage does have that cultural weight- it's the normal thing to do and of course society denies anyone in a L, G or (half) B relationship the right to be normal. So the choice for everyone else in a straight relationship falls in to two categories- refuse to fall in to the system and object by staying unmarried or marry and support the cultural convention.

Gosh, do you think the same applies to bridesmaids because I still haven't been one?
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:58 / 02.10.03
If I choose to marry, I don't think I am saying anything about the rights of marriage and to whom they should extend. - me

See, because I think you are. I think that by choosing to use the "marriage" package, rather than making up your own package (having a non-legal commitment ceremony plus making wills in each other's favour?), you are lending weight to the visibility of marriage and reinforcing the idea that it's the only option that needs to be taken seriously. This might not be the case if it weren't the only legal option, but it is. - Deva

Sorry, I don't understand this. Partly, I don't accept that it works like that, as I think that your inferrals are too uniform to be valid. We'll have to agree to disagree about that. But partly, I just don't follow your reasoning.

By lending weight to the institution of marriage I think it more likely, in a fairly liberal society like ours, that the rights will be extended. If I choose not to support marriage, saying that it need not be taken seriously, then I undermine the charge that there is a rights issue to be addressed.

Clearly, there is an issue of perspective here and I thought your anecdote was intriguing, Deva. You see, I often get asked similar questions about marriage and children - both of which are, in some sense, easily available to me. And while I feel that the question betrays a expression of preference for a certain lifestyle I feel largely unaffected by it. I *know* that different lifestyle choices are valid, and I also know that people disagree with me. But I don't find that disagreement at all threatening, I don't feel that the validity of my choices are somehow undermined.

But, that may be down to the fact that those choices are available? I don't know.
 
 
Cat Chant
10:46 / 02.10.03
Who doesn't secretly want a wedding?

Me. If I want to dress up and have everyone pay attention to me all day - which is all I can imagine getting out of a wedding, for myself - I'll be a keynote speaker at a conference, thanks.

By lending weight to the institution of marriage I think it more likely, in a fairly liberal society like ours, that the rights will be extended.

Ooh. That's a good point, Lurid, but I think part of what I'm arguing is that I don't want the rights to marriage to be extended, I want the model of marriage to be changed. By lending weight to marriage as an institution, you are - or, better, you could be seen to be? - reinforcing its centrality as a model. That is, even if the right to marry is extended to, for example, same-sex couples, the elements that I have problems with are still there: monogamy, the assumption that sexual, financial, next-of-kin and parenting relationships come (or should come) as a package, etc.

I often get asked similar questions about marriage and children... And... I feel largely unaffected by it. But, that may be down to the fact that those choices are available? I don't know.

I don't know either. I'd be interested to hear more about this from the point of view of people for whom marriage is an option. Obviously some of (most of?) the feelings that my sister's marriage arouses in me are specific to the relationship that I have with my sister and the specific dynamics of our birth family (as opposed to the families we are creating through our various strategies [marriage/friendships/etc]), but I do think that the queer/straight divide (by which I mean more a set of political attitudes than a sexual orientation, here) has a lot to do with it, as well.
 
 
Papess
21:49 / 02.10.03
"That is, even if the right to marry is extended to, for example, same-sex couples, the elements that I have problems with are still there: monogamy, the assumption that sexual, financial, next-of-kin and parenting relationships come (or should come) as a package, etc."~Deva

I have a similar/related difficulty in understanding what defines the bonds of a partnership, such as marriage, where the individuals do not subscibe to either traditional church or state definitions or said partnership. How does one go about negotiating (which seems to be all "marriage" implies, and perhaps bond/binding) the terms of a relationship that is so nuturing of the individual that perhaps the actual partnership looks like a farce?

If the people in the partnership do not share the same ideals, goals, lifestyle...then where is the partnership? I hope I am making myself clear, because you bring up a good point with this, for me. I have mulled it over and over...

An "Open Marriage" (I personally have a huge problem with the term. It has been used so inappropriately it makes me nauseous.), where two people in question have agreed they are together for life, but they have other sexual partners, different bank accounts, possibly different residences, maybe even different plans for the future..? I mean, where does the actual contract of marriage and the agreed conditions of it apply then? Is it redundant? Simply an emotional reassurance?

Also, a legal marriage is protection from being shafted by con-artists. Before two people decide to get married they open up a lot of vulnerabilities to the other person. Dedicating one's life to a partnership means being responsible to one another and not doing anything that may threaten it. Unfortunately, given human nature, it has to be legally enforced. Making a partnership legal can be reassuring on all levels. I am sure someone mentioned this before, (grant? Nick?) but here I am trying to say that this is the kind of vulnerability that a "long-term partnership" can face, leaving same-sex couples and other "committed relationships" vulnerable. This is probably the only reason I agree and would want a "legal" marriage, because people WILL toy (or worse) with promises that are not enforced by law. Especially when times get tough or they turn out to be psychopathic...or what not.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
23:52 / 02.10.03
Will come back to this at a sensible time, but thought it might be useful to consider how marriage constitutes the different genders differently, how they relate to the institution, the cultural assumptions.

It strikes me that Anna's 'doesn't everyone want a wedding' is a *very* female perspective, she phrases it in terms of the big dress etc...

Female socialisation=considering relationships>procreation our ultimate achievement. If we're agreed that much of traditional hetero/mono/two-person marriage's power is in its status as being validated as the only 'truly' successful relationship, and to a huge degree, as the only relationship/personal situation within which it's acceptable to procreate, then the way that marriage acts upon the female subject is going to be vastly different upon the male.

Or is it? Thoughts please...
 
  

Page: (1)2345

 
  
Add Your Reply