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

Underground > Switchboard >

getting married is your patriotic duty

Page: (1)2

09:57 / 22.03.02

Bush proposes marriage programs

<<<March 21, 2002 | WASHINGTON (AP) --
As Congress debates government's role in promoting marriage, the Bush administration is considering creating community-wide programs to teach teens the benefits of marriage, offer counseling to couples and inject pro-marriage messages into the culture.>>>
http://www.salon.com/mwt/wire/2002/03/21/marriage_programs/index.html

Bit that pisses me off the most: how they want to use this to "rebuild cultural norms". Your tax dollars at work.

09:57 / 22.03.02

Just been catching up with a few friends and it turns out that quite a few people I went to university with have just got engaged. Wow.
Part of me thinks well, isn't that nice I hope it works out for them. Then part of me thinks why, why, oh dear god why?
I don't get the whole living with a partner thing either. Fair enough I can understand it when you get to a certain stage in life but I look around and so many people are hopping into shared flats with significant others after 6 months. Why is there such a rush to settle down?

09:57 / 22.03.02

Now this is interesting. Do we as a board have actual problems with marriage as an institution? Obviously as the ONLY institution, we should have problems with it sanctioning only one very specific type of relationship, but with the general concept I'm less clear - state sanctioned / legal relationships with benefits and responsibilities... Yay or nay? Opinions?

12:05 / 22.03.02

It's working out okay for me...

12:06 / 22.03.02

...but then, I am Old.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

12:35 / 22.03.02

I don't think the idea of marriage is separable from the state if marriage - no matter how universal the franchise, I can't shake the suspicion that the feeling of "hang on - we are buying into a ritual that for centuries was used as a way for straights to get tax breaks" will never entirely be expunged while our society is still constructed as it currently is.

In the Bush administration case above, I would say the problem there is that monkeyboy is funding programs that encourage teens to marry, potentially swelling massively the ranks of unfit husbands, fathers, wives and mothers.

12:37 / 22.03.02

Moi aussi.

Obviously one problem with marriage is that it's not available to all who want it. I think that should be corrected.

But even if that's corrected, there's the problem that marriage would be privileged as an institution or lifestyle option over, say, non-monogamous relationships.

<thinking>

Okay, this is what I think. Ideally, it would be great if there were no state-sanctioned marriage. I would still choose to live in a longterm monogamous relationship with present husband... if you're curious, because I have zillions and zillions of things I want to do with my life & having this one thing settled lets me get on with other things. And dating is an awful drain on an introvert like me. Plus I have someone in the house who will answer the phone.

In sum, I find marriage (or long-term monogamous relationship) a viable personal option & indeed a positive one for me; but I feel it best to be chosen freely by the persons involved --rather than promoted by society at large.

[Edited to say, I had meant moi aussi to go with Jack Fear's I am old, Father William, but I also agree with Haus's comments directly above.]

13:02 / 22.03.02

Isn't there something positive about the stability of a legally sanctioned relationship where it comes to the upbringing and protection of children that makes it specifically BETTER than non-monogamous relationships..

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

13:09 / 22.03.02

If you assume that children are naturally better off with two parents legally contracted to stick together unless they want to fight it out in the courts...

Why not have communal parenting, or single parents with social support well-developed enough to ensure that they can work and look after their child without going insane?

Even the act of procreation itself no longer requires two people, or two people using their own sperm/ova. Why should marriage get special status above other forms of child-rearing arrangement when standard penis-in-vagina squirty action is no longer regarded as necessarily the best way for everyone to conceive?

13:31 / 22.03.02

I can't buy into the two parents are always better, much less the two parents, one male and one female, are always better. I don't think that monogamy is the answer to child rearing. The key is stability and if you have a stable communal environment it isn't so important to have a single monogamous partner. I think having support is crucial, but I think other arrangements are just as valid and often times better.

My problem with marriage is that it is so far from just legal sanctioning. There's so much cultural baggage that I feel that the institution is simply broken at this point. I can't speak for the board, but I do have problems with marriage.

13:54 / 22.03.02

Im all for marriage, as a ritual between two people (or, hell, more, I dont care) who really care for one another and feel the need or desire for some sort of ceremony or event to solidify it or in some way bring it into the domain of the tangible. Im not for it becoming a priority for the government to push onto people, specifically not in schools.

I can also see why people arent happy with it - marriage is often seen as something that two people - a man and a woman - do, and that once they are in that situation they follow certain rules. its all about being a heterosexual couple in a monogamous relationship with very definitive boundaries and expectations - no wonder people hate the idea

but I also think its up to us to make it more about the intent behind the ritual, rather than the implied history. reject it for yourself if you must, rail against the legal and religious restrictions, but I dont think you should condemn the idea in its entirety

14:02 / 22.03.02

and I agree wholeheartedly with haus - the emphasis on marriage seems a bit weird when there are so much more pressing issues that could be dealt with (homelessness, violence, the sick, education). its sort of like putting an unnecessary coat of varnish on the mailbox of a house thats burning down

14:48 / 22.03.02

I'm married and quite like it. My imaginary wife does too.

Originally posted by Haus:

quote: Why not have communal parenting

Kicked this idea around a few years ago with some friends of ours. It seems like a good idea, though, much like our recent discussion about threesomes, requires a good deal of trust and emotional maturity. We never got past the talking stage, and, in retrospect, that's a very good thing.

Originally posted by bitchiekittie:

quote: Im all for marriage, as a ritual between two people (or, hell, more, I dont care) who really care for one another and feel the need or desire for some sort of ceremony or event to solidify it or in some way bring it into the domain of the tangible

When we got married, we wanted to throw a party to have all our friends come and celebrate the fact that we were in love. That and Tara wanted the lovely dress. The legal part was so small and insignificant compared to the celebration and the fact that we got through planning a wedding together. Seriously, if you can do that, you're set.

Originally posted by Persephone:

quote:Plus I have someone in the house who will answer the phone.

I have that too. Huge phobia of answering the phone. Thank goodness Tara actually likes talking to people.

She's around here somewhere. Weddings and marriage are a couple of her favourite things, I'm sure she'll be along to chime in soon.

Zoom.

14:49 / 22.03.02

Oh, and about the social programs that Dubya wants to implement. Whay is anyone surprised? Can you think of a single thing he's done that's not crazy since he got into office?

Zoom.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

15:11 / 22.03.02

Zoom, we are all delighted that your marriage is a good thing. But you will, I hope, concede that that does not necessarily mean that *marriage* is a good thing.

15:18 / 22.03.02

Sorry, no that's not what I meant. No, marriage can be Hell, I'm sure. I just sometimes get the feeling that it's seen as outdated around here. If that's the case, don't you think that, if the idea of marriage is seen as important, it's up to those of us who care to redefine it?

Zoom.

15:45 / 22.03.02

quote:Originally posted by Captain Zoom:
If that's the case, don't you think that, if the idea of marriage is seen as important, it's up to those of us who care to redefine it?

Maybe, but I can't help but think of the "success" of reclamation. Nigger's an example that comes to mind. (Chosen because I think it was a well intentioned attempt that collapsed under the weight of its history.)

18:14 / 22.03.02

for me two symptoms that suggest the core of the marriage problem is that it still unequally benefits men over women (married men live longer and make more money than any other demographic) and the issue of "ownership" that is difficult to get away from in any relationship in a capitalistic system--I believe in commitment but I wonder about the point when legally re-enforced monogamy plays into capitalistic notions of ownership, control . . . at what point does a relationship "outside" the couple--whether it's emotional or sexual or even intellectual--"sully" the bond?

when I got my first "real job" after grad school, it occured to me that working "outside the home" full time is a very threatening thing to traditional models of the marital relationship: you spend more conscious time with your coworkers, often, than you do with your "family," you live a life apart from your home life, a life where you interact, flirt, share meals . . . at what point does that life become a "threat" to coupledom?

i can't think this late on a friday ...

but on the other hand, the flip side, is the consumption model, the Newt-Gingrich, get a new model when the old one's worn out syndrome.... which haunts relationships, and which older institutions of social commitment may offer some possibility of resistance.

18:34 / 22.03.02

In the Bush administration case above, I would say the problem there is that monkeyboy is funding programs that encourage teens to marry, potentially swelling massively the ranks of unfit husbands, fathers, wives and mothers. – Haus of Freaky Funkadelic Spinstahs

Perhaps I'm being horribly cynical and jaded...but it sounds like Shrubya and his administration are realizing that abstinence just isn't cutting it with today's teens.

18:44 / 22.03.02

quote:Originally posted by alas:
is that it still unequally benefits men over women (married men live longer and make more money than any other demographic)

hold up a sec. Is that because they're married, or is it that men who are more relaxed and/or have better communication skills are more likely to 1) remain married, 2) live longer and 3) have better jobs? Or even some entirely different set of causation?

19:31 / 22.03.02

quote:Originally posted by MJ-12:

hold up a sec. Is that because they're married, or is it that men who are more relaxed and/or have better communication skills are more likely to 1) remain married, 2) live longer and 3) have better jobs? Or even some entirely different set of causation?

What some quick link hunting turned up:

marriage benefits men

men's health and marriage

21:54 / 24.03.02

Okay. See how I have resisted this thread for a long time, and be proud of me... but it couldn't last forever.

Marriage as it currently stands is a bad thing. And Zoom, I do think it's a bit un-thought-through to say that 'the legal element was a tiny part' of your own wedding: yes, that's precisely the problem. Because you chose a heterosexual, monogamous, long-term commitment, you received the privilege that the legal element was able to be a tiny part. For people who do not choose that, the legal element is not a tiny add-on to the romantic package, but an enormous fucking hassle with no guarantees. Cf the Sharon Kowalski case. Nice, white, middle-class Christian couple who wore each other's rings & lived monogamously - were 'married' in every sense but the legal one. One of them is badly (brain-)injured in a car crash. Guess who gets legal guardianship? Common-law spouse? No, because the common-law spouse is another woman and her relationship to Sharon has no protection in law. She is now unable to even visit Sharon because Sharon's parents disapprove of the relationship.

So, yeah. Marriage. Very important to be able to protect horizontal relationships, so that, for example:

BUT this should be absolutely, completely and utterly, detached from any notions of monogamy, heterosexuality, religion, reproduction and/or biological relationship to a child. Cf Drucilla Cornell on this: she uses the old name 'family' strategically, as something most people can relate to, but wants to change the legal-symbolic system (ie, the world!) so that, say, three women who are not in a sexual relationship with one another [or whatever] can raise a child together and be socially and legally recognized as its co-parents. It's a model of 'marriage' or 'family' that recognizes chosen networks of affiliation, not kinship.

[Edited to say]: So I guess in practical terms, this means I would support 'civil registration of partnerships' but I would not support the legalization of gay marriage. In fact I would support the delegalization of straight marriage, so that only the civil-registration model remained.

[ 25-03-2002: Message edited by: Deva ]

pointless and uncalled for

11:49 / 25.03.02

There are only two reasons that I actually agree with for getting married.

The first reason is religion. I know that some people who know me may be suprised to hear me say that given my less forgiving opinions on religion. However I carry a healthy respect for the religious and their faith and if getting married is part of their belief system then I encourage that activity.

The other reason is economics. In some ways it mystifies me that governments and administrative groups would choose to reward people simply on the criteria that they are devoted to each other. However as such systems are in place then it would be foolish for a couple to pass up the opportunities benefits thus provided.

Beyond these two reasons I have no others that would make me want to get married except being devoted to a partner that wants to get married. Given that I see love and devotion as abstracts and thus indefinable, I feel that marriage is in some way trying to define them and to me detracts from that in some way.

A patriotic duty to get married seems incredibly ridiculous to me. Frankly I would rather be shot in the head than say I got married because Dubya said so.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

11:58 / 25.03.02

quote:Originally posted by heterodox:

The other reason is economics. In some ways it mystifies me that governments and administrative groups would choose to reward people simply on the criteria that they are devoted to each other. However as such systems are in place then it would be foolish for a couple to pass up the opportunities benefits thus provided.

Sorry, but I disagree with this. I don't look for ways to get out of paying taxes, because I believe that the redistribution of wealth is on the whole a good thing, and, although inefficient, this is probably the best way to support social services which I do not use but which I do believe should exist.

If I get married, I am to all intents and purposes saying "Hello, there, I would like my straight person's tax dodge, please" - I am endorsing a system that privileges binary heterosexual relationships for monetary gain.

I'm not actually sure, things being as they are, that one *can* "marry" in the conventional sense without in effect selling out people who can't.

Hmmm....

pointless and uncalled for

12:20 / 25.03.02

I see what you're saying that and entirely agree that it is grossly unfair that people are denied the right to marriage based on sexuality.

However, I'm not so sure on the selling out part. In my circumstance then it's pretty much would be the case but to far many other people marriage is much greater than just money or a god. As such with my own beliefs that this is something that I have to respect. Declining the option of marriage because it is not available to others seems to me as a rather lacking reason.

I too agree with the distribution of wealth to support the operations of a national administration. However, being as economically deficient as I am and taking into consideration the varied implications of marriage in terms of costs and future planning, I would make use of the economic benefits thus extended. Sorry about that but it's my natural tendancy as a sad opportunist to do things this way.

Of course all of this is moot as I am unlikely to ever get married. My continued singleness and ever increasing incapability to even approach a prospective partner will ensure that I die old and lonely unless some kind person is willing to take pity on me.

12:38 / 25.03.02

I thought getting married wasn't a right but a patriotic duty?

And - if I may reply for my esteemed colleague Haus whilst also nicking an argument from my other esteemed colleague alas - it's not about "declining the option of marriage because it is not available to others", it's about refusing to support a heterosexist system and refusing to take advantage of the unfair privileges granted to your sexuality. (Is there such a thing as a passive anti-heterosexist?)

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

12:44 / 25.03.02

Good question. It's *certainly* possible to be passively queerphobic, so maybe...

Goodness Gracious Meme

12:49 / 25.03.02

good question, and yeah, i think so.

In that if you take advantage of your position as regards say, marriage, whether you marry or not, you could perhaps count as passively heterosexist?

Eg by not noticing and/or pointing out that you aren't married by *choice* but could do it tomorrow, based on the way your sexuality/relationship structures work.

I have been in relationships that would allow marriage, and ones that wouldn't, and feel rather like Haus on the 'taking advantages' line.

Only time I've ever considered/would consider marriage is within a green card situation, not sure how that would play into this, given that in the situations where it's arisen neither partner was straight.

So basically 'taking advantage' of an institution that both partners had strong objections to.

Need to think about this.

And why do people not seem to see that as soon as you call something marriage/participate in it, you're profiting from all the weight it carries?

[ 25-03-2002: Message edited by: Lick my plums, bitch. ]

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

12:51 / 25.03.02

(Deleted because frivolous)

[ 25-03-2002: Message edited by: Derelict Haus on Cottontail Street ]

pointless and uncalled for

12:59 / 25.03.02

This brings to mind another question. As change is so evidently required, what is more likely to bring about that change.

A couple not married because on the discriminatory nature of the administrators of the system or a married couple seeking to assure that the benefits and recognition extended to them are extended to other parties.

That said, I'm still not getting married on the say so of a head of state.

The Natural Way

12:59 / 25.03.02

Well, I think it's pretty clear where I stand on marriage.

Over there. W/ the Proclaimers.

Damn that Fin Costello, getting all up close and personal w/ those beautiful boys.

[ 25-03-2002: Message edited by: You and Runce ]

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

13:09 / 25.03.02

quote:Originally posted by heterodox:
As change is so evidently required, what is more likely to bring about that change.

A couple not married because on the discriminatory nature of the administrators of the system or a married couple seeking to assure that the benefits and recognition extended to them are extended to other parties.

You mean....somebody who's on our side?

pointless and uncalled for

13:16 / 25.03.02

I think so but the italics are making me doubt myself.

I was thinking more in terms of methods of change than sides but I could be wrong.

14:34 / 25.03.02

I think Haus has a good point about the "taking sides" issue, and as it stands I dunno, I think it would be selling out to some extent.

I'm a much bigger fan of "spiritual marriage" than "actual marriage as it stands today." That said, I know plenty of happily married folks, and god love 'em. In the "never say never" vein, I may one day join the ranks of the marrieds (though god hope not, sorry mom!)

The big issue is that marriage is granted so much more cultural validity than any other relationship. Sort of related: if I had a nickel for every time my parents made a statement to me including the subtly veiled, "Someday when you're married, you know REALLY happy and settled down," well I could probably get myself a mail-order bride.

There are so many possibilities for loving and fulfilling relationships that do not include a paper and some rings (and of course, a Man and a Woman) that I don't see looking beyond marriage as denigrating marriage; rather opening oneself up to opportunities for loving partnerships.

As far as what Haus said about communal child-rearing, there are actually societies in which THAT is the norm. I don't think it takes so much thought an maturity as it does venturing out of what you consider "normal" child-rearing.

I think the biggest thing for children is that they should be raised in a loving, supportive and nurturing environment, and the familial possibilities for that happening are almost endless.

14:57 / 25.03.02

quote:Originally posted by Cherry Bomb:
As far as what Haus said about communal child-rearing, there are actually societies in which THAT is the norm

Im one of the biggest fans of the whole "it takes a village" thing, but unfortunately, it doesnt happen in our society. damn shame, that - theres been a fairly recent breakdown just in the extended family being available to children, let alone completely outside influences

back to marriage, though: so what do you propose marriage-minded folks do...should they skip the whole shebang because of the historical implications of the thing, or just skip the legal bits to prevent buying into a system which excludes certain groups? and at which point do we stop skipping it at all - when its honestly equal for everyone, or will it never shed its negative past?

Page: (1)2