Does Marriage Matter?

My common law partner and I are both sociophobes who absolutely hate the idea of being the center of attention in even minor ways, the process of a wedding seems like an unbearable nightmare.

I think it's a useless and false institution, and oh so reactionary and backwards. I believe there are couples who will remain together for long periods (perhaps even the rest of their lives - the thought of not being alone in old age is particularly comforting to those of us who never did have children, for instance) and couples who will not, but the whole idea that some absurd ceremony is going to (or even should) alter what will be for any particular couple is just nonsense.

If there are commitments involved, the only ones that ought to matter - and I think in the end, the only ones that will matter - are between the partners themselves, and they don't need church, state, and community to be involved in the "deal" to somehow make it more serious or binding. The way I think about it, if it got to the point where religion or community or social forces were the only thing keeping a marriage together, will it really last? Should it? I don't think so.

I really do find the laws surrounding marriage, and the way it is viewed by society, is highly discriminatory. Why should a couple be treated differently based on a very private and intimate agreement they have or do not have with each other? Who else's business is it, and why should anyone derive any external advantage from such an agreement? The status of common law partners and married partners ought to be fully harmonized in legal terms. It should be possible for any couple to derive the same benefits such as taxes etc.

As far as women getting their share of assets in divorce etc ... well that's rubbish too. If women haven't already achieved general workplace equality with men (I know most of the really high rollers are still men, but down here, women do seem to be actually earning more and employed in more professional and lucrative jobs - just anecdotal observation of my peers, mind you) then they ought to be preparing for the day when they do and abandoning the crutches that were used to prop them up in an era when they were highly restricted in education and employment, that's what alimony and divorce settlements were intended for and that's the system that produced them and for which they were designed. It may provide advantage in certain cases but they are (despite appearances) patriarchal constructs that presume and, more importantly, endorse male supremacy in economic life.

Refuge wrote:

Alimony is purely legal.  It is the same as if a worker was laid off from his job he should get a severance package.  Alimony is when the couple decides that as part of their partnership agreement one will foresake employment, take lesser employment or not advance as far in their career for the partnership (maybe a move across country or across province or one to stay home with the children).  The one that stands to economically benefit from this can't suddenly end the partnership and say, oops sorry, you  are on your own now.  In the same vein you can't say that the economically disadvantaged one should not be able to claim if they end the partnership because then you are creating a situation for that person where they are being economically abused by the system - ie they can't leave because they have foresaken their economic independence or semi independence for the partnership. They have to provide support to either continue the original agreement or until a new agreement can be worked out.

Well, when you put it that way, it just sounds so ... sensible. At least where someone's employment has been impacted. I think I'll have to reconsider my views.

Bit off topic, but...I'm pro wedding, but with some reservations with regard to the obligations placed on prospective guests.  And I find that those obligations vary wildly from wedding to wedding.

I recently attending a very small, "indie"-style, minimalist wedding.  40 people, small ceremony plus a meal, non-religious.  At first glance it seemed to be a very low-key and informal affair.  But in reality placed heavy travel, financial, time, and "help the bridge and groom" demands on those who attended.  By the end it proved to be extremely onerous, despite what it pretended to be on the outside, especially compared to your stereotypical big white-dress wedding.  Those sort of weddings I have trouble supporting, big or small, fancy or not.  A wedding should be a happy occasion for your guests, not one that places undue stress on them to the point of causing them grief.

But there's something about weddings (maybe not necessarily marriage) that are really neat.  It's one of the few life events that you can easily share with a number of different people.

Especially coming from a family that came over in the 50s, I know that my wedding will be very important to my grandparents and the sacrifices they made coming to Canada.  The chance to see their grandkids, the first fully Canadian generation, all grown up, being part of a big occasion, moving to a new stage of their life, all that would mean a lot to them.  I don't feel obligated to have a wedding - I just know it would be a recognition that their hard work, dedication, perseverance and parenting have paid off.

I've never believed in the big day being all about the bridge and the groom; rather, for me and my family, the weddings has always been the opposite - all about the guests.  It's the best chance to give a big 'thank you' to all those people who have had an influence/role in the lives of the bride and the groom up until that point.  I find there are very few life events that are intimate enough to allow a large-ish group of people to share in it all together.

it struck me that i really ought to go and read about everybody's background before jumping into conversations at babble, by reading participants profiles.  that might help me to understand different people better.

in any case, i thought it was important to put a note here on this subject.  what is most important is being clear about commitment, or lack thereof, in any kind of relationship.  in 3D world its usually easier to be clear, but with websites, things need to be spelled out more.  personally, i am of the opinion that commitments need to be respected by community members, and people need to be publicly clear about their commitments, so that these can be respected.

" I was ready to throw in the towel on so-called domestic bliss."

She should have. IMV, he was passively aggressively setting the patriarchial tone for their future together and she accepted it.

Further, his renewed interest in wedding planning under the auspices of "recognising that it wasn't just important for the sake of my sanity, but as a political statement too" is beyond my comprehension as a feminist action. IMV, if true equality were of any interest to him, he should/would have been participating for that reason alone,  as opposed to saying essentially he needed to participate for a "political statement"!

What political statement does his participation in planning make now, after his ignoring the planning for months? I would say it doesn't make one. He  recognized his need to  appease her because she was thinking about throwing in the towel, and that is about it. 

I have met many men, who thought what a coup it would be for their ego to marry a feminist, and then make sure she conforms to partiarchy for "love" of them.

radiorahim wrote:

I've been through it twice...first time rather "non-tradtional"...backyard "house wedding"  and the second time more traditional...the "church thing"...although the minister was a bit lefty ;)

And the third time?  ;)  (About as non-traditional as you can get without getting a marriage certificate at the end of the ceremony!)