What is marriage? (thread-related spam, only)

[fable]

Comments in the "should same-sex marriages be legally recognized?" thread indicate some very interesting and diverse opinions among SYMers concerning the institution of marriage. I thought I'd create a virtual space where we can state our respective views, and discuss politely why everybody else's are in need of enlightenment. That is, after all, the essence of social intercourse.

And please, don't make anything of that last phrase. It's only 9 AM, and I've already had a hard day.

My own marriage of twelve years has been very happy, with allowances for the occasional disagreements that will always occur between two alpha types, and strongly contrasting personalities. We complement one another in many ways. We're also best friends, which really helps, since it keeps a line of communications open even when there's anger and resentment. Our marraige was part social recognition of our relationship, part our personal recognition of that relationship, and part (at least, for me) sacrament to something that transcends individual human personalities. But I don't want to get into all that highflown Wiccan verbiage that will bore you to tears, so I'll shut down, now.

[Chanak]

An Ambrose Bierce quote! May I complement you on your discerning taste? Excellent choice.

The concept of marriage, to me, is as fluid as the ocean in many ways. I do not feel that it is defined by external trappings in any regard. It is first and foremost an inner condition of being, which invariably affects the lives and circumstances of both individuals involved. Documents, ceremonies, vows, etc. are only important to the individuals who constitute the married couple. A ring, after all, does not keep two people together...rather, they decide to breathe life into their relationship.

I think the will of the people involved decides whether they are married or not, as I have seen in my own experience. Anyone familiar with certain Christian sects might recognize the term "Mennonite Divorce." In a nutshell, members of this Christian sect are forbidden to marry more than once, citing Biblical writings as the authority for this taboo. The stigma of being divorced is often too much to bear in their very conservative and structured communities, so a rather odd situation arises. A husband and wife who simply cannot stand one another move to separate portions of the same house, leading separate lives within the same home. In the eyes of their community, they are still "married"...however, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Such couples rarely will ever speak a word to one another edgewise, both acting like the other doesn't even exist. I visited one such household a few years ago in Western Tennessee...it was an odd experience, to say the least. I knew both the "husband" and "wife" through a mutual acquaintence, and it was quite a shock to see how they both would walk through the same room, talk to me, and totally ignore each other. Needless to say, I didn't bother asking what was going on...the mutual acquaintence, a former Mennonite himself, explained what was going on to me later.

Marriage is more of a condition, rather than an institution. The symbols and ceremonies we choose to signify what I feel is a very sublime and very spiritual union between two people can vary like the wind.

Actually, fable, I would be interested in hearing your "highflown Wiccan verbiage" concerning marriage. Perhaps you would share it sometime.

[HighLordDave]

As an institution, marriage has historically served three functions:

First, it is a social control to monitor paternity and avert inbreeding. Most cultures encourage monogamy and discourage women from being promiscous, so marriage supposedly ensures that the children a woman bears were sired by her husband. Even in cultures that practise polyandry or polygamy there are similar controls, but in monogamous cultures, marriage is a way for people to trace their bloodlines and prevent close family members from breeding.

Second, it is a mechanism for social and political alliances. The notion of marrying for love is a fairly new phenomenon. In western society, arranged marriages have been the norm up until very recently (the last 150 years or so), and arranged marriages are still the norm in many cultures.

Third, the religious aspect of marriage stresses family and producing children; this is true of nearly all faiths. The reason is simple: the best way to get more [insert denomination here] is to make more. That's another reason why many religious groups discourage homosexuality and treat it as a sin; gay people don't produce children. There was a sect of Christians who believed in sexual abstinance and they died out, literally.

In western culture, marriage is an institution that is changing. What is the function of marriage today? Most people get married for "love", but what is the purpose in an age of co-habitation and common law property settlements? Breaking up is a lot easier and cheaper for people who live together than it is for people who have to dissolve a marriage, even though the actual living, property and custody arrangements may be the same.

What about the vows? "Til death do us part" was a lot shorter when 1 in 3 women died of complications resulting from childbirth, and the average life expectancy was 50 years.

For those of us who are married, why get hitched? My wife and I lived together for a year before we got married and then after the ceremony, the only things that changed were the name on her driver's license and my auto insurance premium (which dropped by about half).

Do people marry to get pesky relatives to quit bugging them about it? Because they're "supposed to"? I think some people get married just to get all the free stuff.

How then should our society view divorce? The social stigma is gone and now divorces are viewed as simply the dissolution of a contract in the same way as a "going out of business" agreement occurs between two partners.

I think we're starting to see a cultural shift in how our society views marriage; it's spiritual and religious overtones are being pushed to the back-burner in favour of the legal and contractual implications (notice the high incidence rates of pre-nuptial agreements among all economic groups). We're starting to see serious discussion (and acceptance) of homosexual marriages and the rates of co-habitation and common law marriages that would have been unheard of even 50 years ago.

[Mr Sleep]

Like I said, I don't think marriage really is that necessary any more.

It is for christian's since it is a sacrement with their God but for the rest of us plebs it doesn't really serve a purpose. Lets face it, most marriage candidates now a days don't care about the marriage and are more interested in the party and the ceremony.

When I am more mentally tactile I'll post a little more.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Sleep It is for christian's since it is a sacrement with their God but for the rest of us plebs it doesn't really serve a purpose.

Just for general informational purposes, marriage as a religious institution in the West didn't really begin until the 13th century CE. A series of popes sought to extend the RCC's power over other various aspects of life in Western and Central Europe. The target was actually the "second estate," the nobility, since marriage in the first estate, the Church itself, was to be eliminated in that period, while the vast peasantry of the third estate didn't really matter quite as much. (They also had far less power.) But forcing the nobility to wed in church, to attend confessional (another relatively new practice), and to marry in families only beyond certain proscribed degrees, was the popes' method of gaining recognition for the spiritual domain. Some historians wax almost poetically lyrical about the so-called proto-Renaissance of the 13th century, but they conveniently forget everything I've mentioned above about the RCC during that period--not to forget the Albigensian Crusade, either, and the Church-directed destruction of the nation of Occitania (now Southern France).

Of course, when some people get married under sacred auspices these days, they're not doing so under religious coercion, or at least, not in most cases. They do it out of a sense of the existence of a relationship that extends beyond the biological, sociological and psychological. I may respond biologically to my wife--in fact, I most certainly do -- but I think marriage as such is a recognition of an extra, spiritual dimension that has grown between us. Not important in and of itself, it acknowledges something very important for us.

When I am more mentally tactile I'll post a little more.

I really like that sentence.

[Enchantress]

Quote:

Originally posted by HighLordDave In western culture, marriage is an institution that is changing.

Thanks HLD - thank was a very interesting post.

As for me, I'm not sure what I think about marriage. Because just about everyone in my family is divorced, I think I've always had an overly romanticised view of it and also a an overly cautious one. Also, until recently I thought I would never find a suitable person to get married to - I wondered if "the right person" was in fact a myth.

But tell me, Wise Ones, what is engagement? Why do people get enagaged? What kind of obligation am I entering into if I accept a proposal of marriage and become someone's fiancee? Is it like a "trial marriage" in some respects?

[nael]

I think being engaged was originally just a small phase between when you knew you wanted to marry someone and the actual ceremony which should start being planned immediately following the engagement.

however, I think it is used more as branding your cattle these days.
Or for those who are too scared to be alone and don't want to be married yet- it is a great way to stall.

[Scayde]

This question brings to mind that great scene in the movie 'Excalibur' where Merlin, standing in the stone cricle gives one of his best lines in the movie...


"A dream?...oh yes........for some....

For others?
http://users.pandora.be/olivier.hufkens/spell.jpg
A Nightmare





Kinda sums it up

[Littiz]

I love your style, @Scayde!

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Enchantress Why do people get enagaged? What kind of obligation am I entering into if I accept a proposal of marriage and become someone's fiancee? Is it like a "trial marriage" in some respects?

Good questions.

Engagements derive primarily from the old custom of church banns. The banns were (are to this day, in some areas) a statement of intent called and posted three weeks before the wedding. Engagements serve much the same purpose in a more secularized, urbanized Western culture. It is a period of "getting used" to the concept of two separate individuals you've known, functioning as a single social unit.

Engagements have no weight under law that I'm aware of, but no doubt HLD could would know far better about this. Of course, if you draw up, sign, and notarize an engagement contract, than presumably you're obligated to follow its terms; so if you accept gifts under such a contract then violate its conditions, you might be held in breach of it and taken to court. But I can't imagine too many people actually sign engagement contracts, once you move outside the extremely wealthy and inbred set.

[Enchantress]

Fascinating info, Fable but why would HLD know more about this than you? Is he an expert on marriage or something? Or a divorce lawyer?

Yes, church's in England still read out marriage banns.

@ The Married SYMies: Did you people get engaged to your future spouses before marriage and how long for? When did you decide you wanted to get married and why did you decide that? What were your weddings like and how were things different afterwards?

[Nippy]

Quote:

Originally posted by fable Engagements have no weight under law that I'm aware of, but no doubt HLD could would know far better about this. Of course, if you draw up, sign, and notarize an engagement contract, than presumably you're obligated to follow its terms; so if you accept gifts under such a contract then violate its conditions, you might be held in breach of it and taken to court. But I can't imagine too many people actually sign engagement contracts, once you move outside the extremely wealthy and inbred set.

For an extension to this (and I hope you don't mind Fable) is the use nuptials before a marriage, its a similar issue, I think.

[Enchantress]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nippy For an extension to this (and I hope you don't mind Fable) is the use nuptials before a marriage, its a similar issue, I think.

But a pre-nuptual agreement is drawn up just before two people become obligated to each other by signing the contract of marriage.

Engagement just means a couple accept the proposal of getting married, traditionally the man buys the woman a ring and they may or may not make plans for when they get married in the future. They may never get married.

I don't think it's anything more than that, is it?

[HighLordDave]

@Enchantress:
I am not a lawyer, although my father is and I have a fairly good grasp of the law and how it works.

With regards to engagement, it is not a contract; marriage is. There are no legal ramifications for engaged couples with respect to property or custody, because there is no contract in place. Marriage, in the eyes of the law, is an enforceable contract, which is why people with lots of property tend to make their spouses sign pre-nuptial agreements to protect the property and wealth they amassed before the union.

The only legal precedents I am aware of that specifically applies to engagement center around the engagement ring. A decade or so ago, a man sued a woman after she broke off their engagement and refused to return the engagement ring he gave her. The court upheld the man's suit and said that an engagement ring is given with the expectation that marriage would follow, and if the recipient of the ring failed to follow through on that expectaction, they had to return the gift.

This precedent applies only to engagement rings, not to any other property given during the process of courtship or engagment. Birthday, Christmas and other gifts are given freely with no further expectation, but he courts have said that engagement rings are "conditional gifts" and bring with them certain obligations and generally must be returned if the giver asks for it back.

There is some other cases where the courts have upheld the recipient of the ring and let her keep an engagement ring after the engagement is broken. Often these cases are when the man (this is rather sexist, but it's usually the man who gives the ring, so I'll keep that assumption throughout this discussion) breaks the engagement, not the woman or if there is a mutual decision to call off the wedding.

In these instances, the courts have said that the ring is a symbol of the woman's intent to marry the man. She is agreeing to marry him and taking his ring on the condition that they get married. That is, the ring is symbolic of an option contract between the two. If the man decides to break the engagement, several courts in upheld allowing the woman to keep the ring because she has kept open the "option" of marriage (ie-she hasn't married anyone else) and the man refused to exercise that option.

Some guys use engagement as a way to shut their girlfrieds up while staving off actual marriage. For other people, engagement is a "test drive" period where they live together and see if those arrangements will work out in the long term. However, I think that for the most part, engagement is simply a time to plan a wedding, which in our culture is very long, involved and expensive.

[C Elegans]

To me personally, marriage actually does not mean a lot except for some practical implication, such as having the same surname which is convienent when I book hotel rooms and such for holiday trips (of fundamental importance, don't you think?) It has legal implications of course, but that can be compensated for fairly easily by consulting a laywer and write up agreements, will, insurances etc. I do not believe in any religions. So for me, marriage is a merely personal thing, meant to demonstrate intention of long-term committment to my partner.

In Sweden there is currently an effort from the goverment to remove the remaining differences between heterosexual marriage and the homosexual equivalent "registred partnership". The rights to civil marriage is no problem, but 50% of priest in Church of Sweden object to christian marriage in the church for homosexual couples, only 25% of priest are for this (the remaining 25% unsure or did not reply). The Intergration minister has now threatned with withdrawing the permission to perform marriage from churches who discriminate homosexual couples. The debate will go on....

Quote:

Originally posted by Enchantress @ The Married SYMies: Did you people get engaged to your future spouses before marriage and how long for? When did you decide you wanted to get married and why did you decide that? What were your weddings like and how were things different afterwards?

I was engaged to my first husband almost 6.5 years before we married. We divorced 1 year after we had married. I married my present husband without prior engagement.

Sound strange, but what happened was that my 1st hubby and I decided to marry after we had co-habitated for about 1 year, so we engaged. However, shortly after that he had a major conflict with his parents, and it felt sort of sad to marry knowing he hadn't even spoken to them for months, so we decided to wait. In the meanwhile, time passed and we lived together as if married so it didn't feel important to marry any longer. One day we happened to start discussing that "do you remember, initially we actually engaged in order to get married", and then we decided that maybe we should get married after all. So we did. To me, it still didn't feel terribly important but I he wanted to marry very much and we married in the City Hall and had our closest relatives for dinner. Half a year later I met Silur. My first husband still hates me Since I and Silur did not live in the same country (not even the same continent actually) it felt important to do something as a symbol of our committment to each other, so we decided to marry as soon as I had got my divorce, which we did. We rushed to another City Hall (the one where I married last time was fully booked) with two of our best friends as witnesses (we originally met at a party in their house) and then the four of us had dinner together. I forgot to tell my friends, so later that night when I met some of my best friends and said "Sorry I'm late, I just got married" they laughed their heads off....

Quote:

posted by HLD Often these cases are when the man (this is rather sexist, but it's usually the man who gives the ring, so I'll keep that assumption throughout this discussion)

Is it only one partner, usually the man, who gives the other a ring? Here, you give each other a ring, usually identical in style to show that you "belong together".