Missing the best part.

[tinyjo]

I've been invited to my cousins wedding in June. As you may, or may not know, I don't agree with marriage. I don't think it's any of the governments business, or the churches, whether Alex and I are in love or not. It's between us - a promise that we make to each other. And if that changes and we decide that we can't work it out, we should be able to part, without requiring the sanction of the state again. But that's beside the point. There are 3 things that appeal to me about weddings. One is the reception. A big party with all of your friends and family (NB you don't actually have to have the wedding for this). Then there's the dress. I have an absolute love of beautiful dresses - thank god for the banquet and cocktail parties, that's all I can say. And, finally, there's the wedding list. This is one thing that you can't really get without actually having the wedding, unfortunately. Basically, you get to wander round one of those lovely shops like John Lewis or Habitat or something and pick out loads of pretty things like bed linen and crockery which are surprisingly expensive to buy for yourself and get your guests to buy them for you. I just can't understand why if you were going to go through the whole wedding thing anyway, you wouldn't want to get people to get you nice things rather than vouchers.

Comments

[white_hart]

I find your views quite interesting, partly because at the moment I'm trying to write an article for this site about marriage. I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but when I got married we both saw it as a chance to reiterate the promise that we had to each other, in front of all of the people we most care about. The legal part was totally insignificant beside the fact that we were devoting a day to sharing our happiness with everyone we knew :)

Plus, we now have Le Creuset ;)

Would you mind if I quoted a bit of your entry in my article (assuming I ever write it)? I'd leave out names, of course, but your reasoning for being against marriage is just the hook I need to start the article off...

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Sure - help yourself :) I'm flattered! I'd prefer to be attributed, if you can, but don't worry about it too much.

[shepline.livejournal.com]

Whether they ask for things off a list or vouchers I tend to go against that anyway, favouring instead to give them something personal like a pen and ink sketch of the church which I've done myself or something. It seems to always go down well...

Marriage

[(Anonymous)]

It's true that whether you and Alex are in love or not is nobody else's business. The legal questions have to do with 'society' having to pick up the bill(s) if you generate dependency relationships, based on "love" which then "doesn't work out". If you choose not to marry, fine; if you have kids, though, with Alex, and he wants to be acknowledged as their father (with all the responsibilities and rights that entails) then you have to have them legally declared to be his children. If you're married then he has his rights and duties de facto. Partition of property between cohabs is also problematic, whereas the law is really very clear indeed on property division between married persons; same goes for inheritance (although it's always bad to die intestate it's really bad to do so when you are cohabs rather than married persons, where a greater degree of certainty exists for the remaining partner).

Like many things, marriage is partly about what White Hart says it is - making a declaration in front of the people you love the most - and partly about what happens when things start going wrong. Some people find it very helpful to remember that they promised to love one another through sickness and health, through riches or poverty, until death parts them. Marriage gives you a formal checklist of stuff to do or at least think about when the previously easy flight starts going out of control. It isn't about promising to *be* "in love", more about promising to *do* in love, in honour, in respect for the other person, even when you don't actually want to do so at that moment. Society is enriched by people who make a public commitment to doing what is right, don't you think? Or else why would we care about the promises politicians make?

Re: Marriage

[jinty]

This is a good reply. Who is it?

Public promises

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Society is enriched by people who make a public commitment to doing what is right, don't you think? Or else why would we care about the promises politicians make?

That's an interesting idea. I feel that society is enriched by people doing what is right. Leading by example is very valuable, particularly in a cynical age where people are often promising to do what's right and rarely delivering. I contrast the behaviour of Clare Short, who declared that she would resign from government if the PM took us into an illegal war in a very loud and publicity seeking way and then signally failed to do so, with that of Robin Cook and John Denham who said nothing publically beforehand about their intentions, preferring to work to avoid the situation from within, but took a principled stand when it became clear that they had failed.

The promises politicians make are promises to all of us, the electorate, so it's important and appropriate that they tell us what they are. The promises that I make to Alex need only be shared with him.

My response to the main part of your comment is getting a little garbled, so I'm going to go and make a cup of tea and have another shot at it.

My tuppence

[applez.livejournal.com]

Thinking on classic human cultures - marriage very rarely has anything to do with the couple involved ... they're the icing on the cake of union between families, who seek mutual support & benefit in a dangerous world.

Whether it's trading Chinese Princesses to appease Mongol warlords, or the union between blood-feuding Venetian merchants (and no, I'm not talking about the blinds ;-p) ... marriage is more a political function than an exclusive statement of love and commitment between two individuals.

I suppose, one line to take about the involvement of Church and Government in such ceremonies is, beyond the spiritual and legal aspects of such unions, is to degrade the political power and influence of family unions with this stamp of greater authority.

OK, that's a twisted way of looking at it, but I thought it might add to this line of thinking. :-)

--

Re: My tuppence

[(Anonymous)]

Certainly, my comments were made about current trends in societies which do not treat women and children purely as chattels - in other words, the one in which TinyJo and White Hart live. I take the point you make about power plays/balances between Il Famiglia and Church or State, but in our society it is the State, certainly, and sometimes the church[es] which pick up the pieces when things go wrong between couples. In practical terms, my taxes pay for other people's children when their dads go AWOL, and married parents tend (*tend*) to do that less often than unmarried ones.

But more intimately, marriuage is like any skilled and dangerous exercise: pilots get paid big money not because they can fly planes but because they know what to do when the plane stalls, loses an engine, or gets into an unexpected electrical storm. Marriage, when it is undertaken in an informed way, ("not lightly or unadvisedly")trains you and informs you about what to do when you are headed for a tailspin.

Not everybody wants the framework of a marriage, of course, but they do have to take on board the consequences for others of their failed relationships. This is not a personal comment about Alex and TinyJo at all, of course, who doubtless would make provision for all sorts of contigencies, being thoughtful persons. But in general, making a promise in public is a form of leading by example: it tells the rest of us that the persons getting married *have* thought about their responsibilities which would devolve upon the rest of us in the event of failure.

And even in the grim light of marriage-as-power-allocation, that's not a bad public announcement to make.

As for Clare Short, she decided she could do more for the Iraqi people by doing the job she had been chosen to do. She decided one set of principles was in the end more important than a different set of principles. Robin Cook and John Denham did not have Clare Short's responsibilities (that R word again) nor her power nor her expertise, so in fact they were "sacrificing" nothing but prestige and some money for being Ministers. The choices were different. Men can always find a reason for doing something "on principle" when it costs them nothing. Robin Cook didn't stand on principle when it came to his wedding vows because that would have meant he had to find a new secretary and end his affair, and he couldn't quite manage that. Clare Short nursed her dying husband through years of illness and is now widowed. She's a practical woman and made the right choice, which was to change her mind. I know who I'd rather have as my friend!

Re: My tuppence

[applez.livejournal.com]

More meat on the bones ... v. interesting (thumbs up).

:-)

----

Re: My tuppence

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

The point is, though, that even though Clare may be laudable the rest of the time, she made a public promise to do the right thing. No politicians equivocation, no sliding round, she came right out on the Westminster hour and said it. "If Tony Blair starts an illegal war, I will resign". She promised. And then she broke that promise. She knew when she made it that it would mean that she couldn't co-ordinate the aid efforts in Iraq or continue her other international development aims if she resigned and she still promised. If she didn't mean it, she shouldn't have said it. I think personally that she didn't believe that it would come to that and thought it a good opportunity to get publicity for what a jolly principled person she was. Shame it didn't work out that way in practice.

Robin Cook and John Denham chose not to make a big theatrical issue of it beforehand, but when the crunch came, they stuck to their principles. They couldn't give their support to something that they believed to be wrong and criminal. So they stood down and that deserves respect. In doing so, they gave up their opportunity to push forward other issues that they belived in. With the new Leader of the House, the chances for Lords Reform suddenly look a lot remoter and the House of Commons may well slip back into complete irrelevance. Robin Cook was dedicated to those reforms and to give them up was a considerable sacrifice but he wasn't prepared to make a compromise which would have left him with blood on his hands.

My thoughts on your other points have rather balloned, so I've made another post - http://www.livejournal.com/users/tinyjo/188217.html - putting my view in more detail and answering some of your points.

I'm entirely willing to believe that in other areas of their lives, the positions may be reversed, but as you cited politics, this was the example that came to mind.

Re: Marriage

[ixwin.livejournal.com]

Just passing through. Getting married in two weeks, and agree with most of this - particularly the promising to *do* in love, rather than *be* in love.