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: 12(3)45

 
 
Cat Chant
09:15 / 07.10.03
They are wierd and freaky, but I would urge tolerance

I'm not very patient with 'tolerance' as a model, so I'm not going to get into this until I have the energy to start a new thread, which is what I think it would need.

So... just to have one more final go at the 'wrong trousers' thing, Lurid - I was partly referring to the film (sorry, should have been clearer), in which, I believe, the 'wrong trousers' take on a life of their own and guide the movements of their wearers, rather than the other way round. Following on from that, the thing with marriage is:

Whatever might be going on in the minds of our hypothetical groovy, right-on, tolerant het-monogamous couple who believe that marriage is only one of many different and equally valid relationship models, their legal marriage is based on heterosexual privilege. When the idea of gay marriage comes up, time and time again the idea is rejected on the grounds that it 'devalues' marriage, which is specifically for heterosexual couples and specifically about heterosexuality. So the ceremony and legal ritual they go through is not simply one of many available options which they have chosen, with no implication about the particular form of their own relationship: outside of the couple's intention, the 'language' they use to express their desires cannot help but also express the privilege of heterosexual monogamy. Part of the social function of marriage is to reinforce that privilege, and they can't get married without that social function operating. If they don't want their marriage to be understandable in terms of the society which defines 'marriage' as 'necessarily heterosexual, because gay marriage is wrong', why are they using that part of the socio-legal system?

It's sort of like if the Christian Right made a 5p profit every time you used your phone line: you might be talking to people about gay rights, but the technology which enables that conversation is supporting the opposite.

And also, I was asked to agree with the proposition that "a woman can't feel secure in a relationship until the committment of marriage is given".

See? The centrality of marriage is bad for hets, too! Because - was it you, Persephone, who brought up the Harriet Vane example? That as long as you carry on your relationship in the shadow of this 'gold standard' of commitment, there's always the possibility that all unmarried liaisons aren't properly committed. (I've seen the same proposition put forward by a man who didn't feel properly secure until he & his girlfriend got married, by the way, Lurid: that, again, is one of the things marriage is for. It defines itself against all other forms of relationship and, because it has a central, privileged status, that means all other forms of relationship exist in its shadow to some extent.)

Persephone - thanks for the Radix interview! It's interesting to think about marriage as part of a sequence of events (proposal, marriage, um... honeymoon? children? first anniversary?)... while I was in Australia with my girlfriend this summer, half a planet away from my sister & thus with enough distance to obsess about marriage, I kept falling over giggling at the thought that, if I were a man, I could transform any given moment into a memorable, life-changing event by proposing to J. ('It was so romantic! We were just in the middle of the washing-up, it was a perfectly ordinary evening, and all of a sudden... he asked me to marry him!!')

Lots more to say but I should do some work at some point today.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:19 / 07.10.03
Oh - Persephone, I totally agree [perhaps unsurprisingly] with your idea about straight people using gay marriage as a model. I've also been wishing Ganesh or Xoc would pop into this thread, because they know more than me about trying to create a legal next-of-kin relationship without having recourse to marriage... which reminds me to say, also, that my views on marriage may have been partly formed by the fact that most of my experience of it has come through working as a secretary in family law firms.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:07 / 07.10.03
Anna de L: Yeah, I know. But it seemed an appropriate time to point out that not all the world is Barbelith.

Deva, you should start that thread on tolerance. Though perhaps it won't achieve much as I think we disagree pretty fundamentally.

If they don't want their marriage to be understandable in terms of the society which defines 'marriage' as 'necessarily heterosexual, because gay marriage is wrong', why are they using that part of the socio-legal system? - Deva

Because there is a function served by getting married and the perception of gay marriage as wrong is a rather monolithic reading of the current debate. And while you may bring up the rhetoric of anti-gay right wingers, this is a poor argument, since as I said before, if more liberal eschewed marriage, the institution would become more conservative.

I also think your analogy with paying the Christian right 5p is also pretty flawed. There is an enormous difference between a financial benefit and a benefit in terms of perception. Getting married does not reduce the possibility of marriage for others. If I were to take your argument to its natural conclusion, I would have to assume that my being heterosexual, and the actions associated with that, is somehow oppressive to those with a different sexuality - and I don't accept that, even though heterosexuality is the "norm".

But actually, on reflection, if the only way to use the phone contributed to some political ideology I disagreed with, then I probably would still use it. I mean, open your eyes Deva.

Mostly, I don't believe that you buy your own argument, as it would apply to different contexts where I assume you reject it. For instance, you are or have been in academia? Right. And as we all know, academia correlates strongly with social class and white privilege. Therefore by participating in the system as it stands, do you validate social stratification and racism? Not in my view.

The thing is, all of us on this board are privileged in a variety of ways. And yet we participate in many activities which exclude some class or other. That, in itself, is insufficient reason to reject those activities.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:15 / 07.10.03
I think this is a perfect time to bring up the recent government plans that afford British homosexual couples rights that heterosexual couples (that reject marriage) have been denied. The ever-vocal Peter Tatchell rightly noted that the government has opted for an unimaginative, watered down version of marriage, instead of having the foresight to devise an entirely new, modern legal framework for partnership recognition.

The problem with marriage is that legally it's the best option. Leaving us straight/bisexual souls with one decision that is really quite ridiculous- support the sanctity of marriage or reject it. Even if you think it's outdated and hopeless, for tax purposes, inheritance and property rights, it's the sensible thing to do. I am so sick of Ann Widdecombe whining on about straight people having the right to this legal rigmarole already. We do not have the right, we have to perform an archaic ceremony and be bound together in order to have these rights.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
11:55 / 07.10.03
As we all know, academia correlates strongly with social class and white privilege. Therefore by participating in the system as it stands, do you validate social stratification and racism?

I'm not sure if that works as a comparison. Marriage is simply an option which is not open to anyone who isn't heterosexual and monogamous.

Academia, however, doesn't reject anyone on any grounds other than being unable to do the work (though it may require a certain amount of money, but unless one were going to refuse to have anything to do with anything involving money because we don't live in a perfectly even and just society, I think that can be discounted). The fact that the majority of people who attend university are white and middle class isn't anything to do with the institution itself, but with the cultural history which dictates current attitudes, economic status etc. of different cultural and social groups.

To make the attendance at universities more evenly spread across different groups, one would either have to enforce some pretty major "positive" discrimination (some universities have just started practising this; whether or not it's a good thing is a separate discussion) or completely change society to make everyone equal. With identical views across all different cultures.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:01 / 07.10.03
Academia, however, doesn't reject anyone on any grounds other than being unable to do the work (though it may require a certain amount of money, but unless one were going to refuse to have anything to do with anything involving money because we don't live in a perfectly even and just society, I think that can be discounted).

Except that it does, especially in the arts where there is little funding. I know lots of people who, despite being able to do the work (and being accepted by the university of their choice, etc.) cannot pursue an academic career because they have been unable to secure funding.

Also, 'being able to do the work' is often something which is determined as much by one's previous access to education, which is often determined by wealth, social status, etc. Academia may purport to be inclusive, but in reality it can be just as exclusive as other sectors.

However, it is an institution of a different sort than marriage so I'm not sure whether it has any further place in this discussion (other than as an example of personal validation/acceptance in the eyes of one's community, which I think was Deva's original point...)
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:06 / 07.10.03
I realise that much of that is similar to what you said, but I thought it worth saying that academia doesn't exist separately from the rest of society and its inequalities and is implicated in many of those inequalities...
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:16 / 07.10.03
Yes, didn't mean to cause threadrot and I was just using academia for contrast to look at a particular argument concerning marriage. If there is interest, however, this is a topic that someone could start in another thread.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
12:22 / 07.10.03
I know lots of people who... cannot pursue an academic career because they have been unable to secure funding.

As said, I think that can be discounted, unless one were to boycott absolutely everything in our capitalist society because it is unavailable/less available to some people due to their inability to afford it.

Also, 'being able to do the work' is often something which is determined as much by one's previous access to education, which is often determined by wealth, social status, etc.

... And that's what I meant by the whole "cultural history" thing. But these inequalities aren't actually to do with academia itself, but with the way the entirety of society still means that different groups have different attitudes and are economically far from equal.

Off-topic there. But my point, basically, was that the inequality in inclusiveness in academia is to do with society rather than the institution, and therefore entering it doesn't have direct connections to (even if unintentionally) lending support to social inequality. The issues with inclusivity in marriage (or partnership or even party-with-"gravity" options), however, are directly related to the institution; in order to provide equal options for anyone who is gay or polyamorous, or who wishes to register their commitment to a long- or short-term platonic partnership, or whatever, it's the actual system itself which would need to be changed.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
13:01 / 07.10.03
Agree on the last point, but disagree on the first two (though not too radically) - we can take that elsewhere though.
 
 
Cat Chant
13:38 / 07.10.03
Mostly, I don't believe that you buy your own argument, as it would apply to different contexts where I assume you reject it. For instance, you are or have been in academia?

[grin] Coincidentally, it was only yesterday that I said to someone in an email "... so I'm continuing, indefensibly, to contribute my labour power to Leeds 'Invests In British Aerospace' University". No, I don't think I can defend being/staying in academia. For the moment, I'm trying to ease my conscience by getting involved in teaching and other intellectual projects outside the academy - building up alternative places and models in which thinking and learning can go on (which you'll note is exactly analogous to my stated desire that marriage be encouraged to die out through vigorous contributions to alternative arrangments) - but I don't know how much longer I will continue in academia after I finish my Ph.D. this year.

Threadrot, I know, sorry. I think I'm going to stay out of this thread, at least for a while, because (a) according to my own arguments, I think that my continuing to contribute in this way may be closing down a space for people who want to talk about the positive things that marriage means to them, and I'd be interested to learn from them, and (b) I'm just repeating myself.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:51 / 07.10.03
And to be consistent with my point of view, I'd urge you to reject reason a) as I don't think you are discouraging anyone and also b) since if everyone thought like that, there'd be few posters left.
 
 
cusm
14:47 / 07.10.03
Marriage is simply an option which is not open to anyone who isn't heterosexual and monogamous.

Ta Pingles, I am married, but not monogamous. That part is negotiable. Though the straight bit currently isn't.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
15:22 / 07.10.03
Oops, sorry.

But still, in order to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage, or have a marriage recognised by the state, a couple have to at least swear/pretend to be mongamous. Like Deva said, seeing other people as well as her girlfriend would certainly not fit into the "relationship akin to marriage" criteria legally.
 
 
YNH
17:49 / 07.10.03
We do not have the right, we have to perform an archaic ceremony and be bound together in order to have these rights.

As grant pointed out, a het couple can spend 5-10 minutes getting bound. And bound may be harsh wording, considering very few do it only for the legal rights. That same het couple could theoretically also enter into a legal marriage with none of the attached rights.

Further, while all marriages are theoretically subject to the same scrutiny as the one Deva descibes, nobody's gonna come around and check up a polyamourous married couple and deny the validity of their contract.

So you have a situation where a het couple has a variety of options while any other pair or group has none.
 
 
grant
18:51 / 07.10.03
This came up a while ago on one of them Christian bulletin boards... I really wonder how exactly polygamy is instituted in law in, say, South Africa. Or Nigeria. It's a big deal in the Anglican Church, because there are African congregants (and clergy, too) who are polygamous, just like they've always been.

So there's another crumbly border there -- in some places, the institution of marriage can be more than just a het couple. There are traditional (religious) but non-legal polygamous marriages in parts of Utah & Arizona, too. Slightly more formal (and generally much more one-sided) than open marriage.
-----

Deva said:
(which you'll note is exactly analogous to my stated desire that marriage be encouraged to die out through vigorous contributions to alternative arrangments)

To which I would say:
I have a strong feeling that those "alternative arrangements" would simply become known as "marriage" -- the word/concept itself would expand to include a wider variety of experience.

I'm dying to add -- it used to be a much broader institution in the early church. Check out this blog entry I wrote about adelphopoiia, the old Office of Same-Sex Union.

I wonder what legal status marriage had at the time adelphopoiia was still being widely practiced... I imagine the law had to step in at some point, beyond just "Caesar says" or "The Duke says." How does law come from common practice?
 
 
grant
19:17 / 07.10.03
By the way, there's a useful repository of marriage laws here, although it hasn't been updated to include the recent loosening of requirements in China.
(lede graf: Getting married in China became easier Wednesday as new rules took effect that eliminate a requirement for couples to get permission from their employers.)
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:10 / 08.10.03
those "alternative arrangements" would simply become known as "marriage"

Yes but the meaning behind the word would certainly have expanded as well.

a het couple can spend 5-10 minutes getting bound

And they can continue to carry the tradition on their backs and further the institution of marriage. Whoop de doo!
 
 
Ex
13:43 / 08.10.03
Interested in the issues of monogamy and gendered investment...

nobody's gonna come around and check up a polyamourous married couple and deny the validity of their contract.

I was wondering if the social expectation of monogamy is legally enforced as well, for heterosexuals. You can divorce on grounds of adultery (in 1919 a man could divorce his wife for adultery, but not vice versa). It might jeopardise custody, or (if you’ve left your spouse and re-partnered in nuclear-family-style) it might support custody. I know a woman in a recent US custody hearing who felt she was substantially disadvantaged by mention of her lovers, even though she and her husband had been poly and her husband had had other lovers also - she felt that in her hearings, ‘adultery’ was taken as a sign of being a bad mother/wife but didn’t considerably affect being a good father/husband. Are there other laws? Or is the ‘monogamy’ element of marriage running on social disapproval and expectation?

As to whether the bride has power. Persephone, your stuff was reeeeeaaally interesting... I was wondering if/when the bride has to give the big shiny sceptre back. When she accepts? Or when she's actually hitched? It was an intriguing way of visualising it.

I’ve been thinking in terms of novels and plots. Traditionally, the female character’s plot is a romance, and the wedding is seen as the end. It’s her highpoint. It’s the moment when she excercises the power of choice, when she has agency, when she decides who to marry, when she shows she’s succeeded in winning a husband. But that is the last significant act, excercise of will, or decision she gets to make. It’s traditionally a swan song.
That’s a really pessimistic way of considering modern marriage. But it’s part of the glorious heritage, and I think explains why weddings are such a weird blend of bridal celebration and display, and more negative elements. Like a retirement party.
 
 
grant
14:06 / 08.10.03
Wedding cliche phrase: "She's off the market now."

You can read that one a few different ways....

----

"Adultery" is still grounds for a divorce -- I can't remember the term, but it's the kind of divorce when one person files papers and the other person doesn't have to agree to it.

If the state has any excuse to get involved -- immigration status, child custody, whatever -- polyamory is going to be a major problem.

------

I was wondering if/when the bride has to give the big shiny sceptre back. When she accepts? Or when she's actually hitched? It was an intriguing way of visualising it.

My vote would be once the honeymoon is over.

Often marked by a grim, smirky chorus of that same song. "The honeymoon is oooverrr...."
 
 
grant
14:11 / 08.10.03
AdL: those "alternative arrangements" would simply become known as "marriage"

Yes but the meaning behind the word would certainly have expanded as well.


I'd have to say that it always IS changing... that's part of the point of that adelphopoiia bit, and the Chinese & African laws, and all that. It's not nearly as monolithic an institution as one might assume, either across time or space -- neither as a ritual or as a social status.
 
 
cusm
15:31 / 08.10.03
Good point about adultry. Although a married het couple can choose alternative lifestyles once the papers are signed, the law will still expect them to live in the traditional manner, and if they do not will hold it against them should the matter ever come up in court.

Recent pushes in the states by the righters have been to legally defend the term marriage as defined as a monogamous het union. This is in opposition to attempts at legalizing gay unions and such. The end result of it all is, efforts are underway to offer the same legal rights to non-het couples (and have succeeded in some states), but they can't call the union a marriage. I believe in Vermont its called a Civil Union. So while alternative models may find legal support, they'll never be considered 'marriages', which after reading this thread I'm thinking is a good thing. Lose all the connocations that way.
 
 
Papess
19:04 / 08.10.03
"Adultery" is still grounds for a divorce -- I can't remember the term, but it's the kind of divorce when one person files papers and the other person doesn't have to agree to it. ~grant

"Irreconcilable Differences"?
 
 
grant
02:06 / 09.10.03
Nah. In this state, I think it's the opposite of "no fault," which sounds like car insurance.
 
 
Persephone
02:15 / 09.10.03
"Your fault"
 
 
Papess
02:28 / 09.10.03
[ot]
*snicker*
[/ot]
 
 
Cat Chant
11:06 / 09.10.03
[informational, and not absolutely guaranteed, but from my experience in family law departments]

In England (and, presumably, Wales), there are five main grounds for divorce:

adultery; unreasonable behaviour; two years' separation (with consent); five years' separation (without consent); two years' desertion. It's very rare for a divorce actually to be contested, in the sense of one partner refusing to get divorced, but not uncommon for one party to file for divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour and the other to cross-file their own petition on the grounds of the first party's own unreasonable behaviour (or adultery). This is very annoying if you are a secretary, as it means both parties are both Petitioner and Respondent and it is easy to get muddled up. It is probably very nice if you are a lawyer, as it means there is lots more work.

The actual wording of the adultery petition is "The Respondent has committed adultery with [the Co-Respondent] and the Petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the Respondent", so there are actually two elements there (though in the case of a citizen/non-citizen marriage the State will deny the validity of a marriage if one party commits adultery, whether or not the other party finds it intolerable to live with hir).

link
 
 
Cat Chant
07:58 / 13.10.03
Hey! It's Marriage Protection Week!
 
 
saroeb
08:38 / 13.10.03
Well I've recently married, few months ago. We flew over to the States and got married over there, with 15 of our closest friends.

Why?

Well we've been together 11 years, have a 9year old child, own a house, both work etc etc blah blah.

This was more a confirmation of both our love and commitment towards each other, we have no religous inclination it was purely that a confirmation of everything we are working towards as a couple.

I think if you start looking any deeper into the whys and wherefores of marriage then you'll just tie yourself in knots. Isn't it just simpler to accept that everyone has a different reason for wanting to get married, and asking 'why' and 'whats the point' is merely a reflection of your own personal experience/stance on the subject.

Whether or not you agree with the concept of marriage is neither here nor there, its the individuals concerned who either do or don't get married that are the important people here and right or wrong they'll choose their own path.

I guess I've never thought all that deeply about it as it seemed a natural thing to do after all this time together as a couple/family
 
 
grant
18:58 / 13.10.03
I'm not the only one to be sorely tempted to sign the petition just to leave a message at that link, Deva. I can't be the only one.

I mean:

Certainly, as Jesus said, the dual admonition to love God and our neighbor rightly sums up "the whole Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:40). But it is fallacious to believe that this "law of love" contradicts specific commandments concerning homosexuality; Instead, love is expressed in them.

"Love is understood not by our definition but by God’s," said Welch. "It is defined as obedience toward God. We do not autonomously decide what form love takes. God tells us how to love."

...This is why the advocating of same-sex marriage nears the fearful line of blasphemy, for it perverts the one-flesh metaphor of man and wife to encompass the concept of Christ choosing for himself, instead of a woman, another man with whom to join Himself for all eternity.


It's just begging for some kind of response. But I can't sign it cuz that's what they want. Ooooo. Ooooo. Oooooo.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:16 / 06.07.04
This was more a confirmation of both our love and commitment towards each other, we have no religous inclination it was purely that a confirmation of everything we are working towards as a couple.

And there's the rub, if you want cultural recognition, if you want to be state affirmed than the only option is marriage. So coming back to this in 2004 I think my own problem with my rejection of marriage is that I strongly believe in the state (not necessarily our state but the general ideal) and I would like an option that didn't have its origins in religion so that I could have a relationship that was tied in to the wider society.
 
 
Cat Chant
12:26 / 08.07.04
Seeing as this thread has been bumped...

One of the things that I've been thinking about over the year or so since my sister got married is that I genuinely don't understand why people get married, and it's very difficult to find out, because The Married tend to say things like:

I've never thought all that deeply about it as it seemed a natural thing to do after all this time together as a couple/family

Actually, this reminds me of something Ex said in the bisexuality thread:

I.. like the fact that bi as a label has no fixed attachments. And therefore if people want to know about the set-up of my life, they'll have to ask some more explicit questions, and I'll get a chance to hold forth on who is important to me and how I view sex, life, stuff.

The experiences that I've had talking about marriage have mostly been (not always, of course of course) the opposite of that: me and the married person stare at each other in mutual incomprehension, as they struggle to explain something that's so self-evident to them and so completely obscure to me. (That is, they assume that I get the "fixed attachments" of marriage, the concomitant financial/sexual/living arrangements, and I find it very hard to frame any explicit questions that don't strike them as offensive or fatuous.) I get the feeling that people whom the normative model fits - at least well enough not to "think too deeply" about it - think that the concept "marriage" on its own communicates something self-evident and "natural". Words that keep coming up are: affirmation; commitment; love; family. It seems to be very difficult, precisely because of this feeling that marriage is the natural or obvious next step, to articulate what marriage as it stands contributes to a relationship and how and why it does so. So if anyone can explain that to me, I'd be grateful.

In return, here are two of the best, most interesting personal/autobio pieces I've ever seen on same-sex marriage, by Alison Bechdel (creator of the genius Dykes to Watch Out For) and her... well, her spouse, I guess, Amy Rubin:

Rubin's article and Bechdel's comic.
 
 
grant
19:09 / 08.07.04
I get the feeling that people whom the normative model fits... think that the concept "marriage" on its own communicates something self-evident and "natural".
...because of this feeling that marriage is the natural or obvious next step, to articulate what marriage as it stands contributes to a relationship and how and why it does so. So if anyone can explain that to me, I'd be grateful.



I think the quotes around "natural" are probably the starting point, or the point I'd start with. Marriage, to my way of thinking, is "natural" only insomuch as it's "easy and convenient." Not that it means investing less effort in the relationship, but that it means investing less effort in defining the relationship.
It's a contract with some pretty clear terms because (in its most widely accepted form, at least in this culture, and in theory, at least) it's so exclusive and absolute.

Who's involved in this transaction? Two people, no more.
How long does this transaction go on for? Until one party dies.

Elements of choice and examination are eliminated... as far as the contract is concerned, you don't have to ask yourself "what do I do about this attraction I feel to this person" or even "should I be feeling this way" or, more extremely, "how do I feel about this person" because the answer is spelled out for you. As a result, you've got a lot less work to do when dealing with other people.

I think this has become a theme of mine in recent Head Shop posts -- the link between convenience and conservatism. But anyway, yeah, marriage might seem "natural" because it involves little conscious effort, the same way breathing does.

Does that work?
 
 
grant
19:13 / 08.07.04
Oh, and I *love* the Akbar & Jeff cameo in that comic.
 
 
Cat Chant
07:51 / 07.08.04
Bumping the thread again, sorry, but while I was looking up the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights for this thread, fuck me if I didn't find out that marriage is a universal human right!

Does anyone know anything about this? Is it being used to challenge anti-gay-marriage laws, for example? If not, why not? Or does anyone know how it got on the list of universal human rights? Presumably "marriage" is taken to be transparent and cross-culturally similar enough to be asserted as a right (see the thread linked to above for how rights are asserted as inherent in human being, not legally granted by a particular juridical State form) - that is, to have a recognizable universal legal meaning.

(Mister Disco, if you're reading this, do you know anything about it? I have this vague tiggle in my brain that it might have been relevant to the research you were doing when I met up with you last year...)

Here's the wording of the declaration, btw (it's Article 16):

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Oh, hang on, it says 'men and women'. (Personally I don't see that that rules out men and women marrying in same-sex pairs, but then I'm not a lawyer.) Is the heterosexuality of marriage enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It doesn't seem to address the issue of monogamy/polygamy, which is interesting as a contrast...
 
  

Page: 12(3)45

 
  
Add Your Reply