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

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.