The Sanctity of Marriage
by Giulianna LamannaNo matter what topic you’re researching, the Internet is guaranteed to supply you with a goldmine of completely unsupported and inaccurate information on the subject. If wedding traditions are any different from other subjects in this regard, it’s only because the amount of bad information increases - and then goes on to grace the pages of infinite, expensive, well-packaged fluff books. The origin of the wedding ring in particular is frequently explained - sometimes seriously, sometimes as a joke - as a remnant of barbaric primitive times, in which horny cavemen kidnapped helpless, unsuspecting maidens and tied their feet together so they couldn’t escape. The story usually continues to claim something along the lines of the woman’s feet first being bound together by vine, then by wood, then by iron, then by bronze, then by silver, then by gold. And of course, by that time, civilization has become so advanced and pro-woman (unlike those violent, anti-feminist foragers) that the shackles have now become delicate gold rings.
Naturally, there’s absolutely no evidence for any of this, and, in fact, the evidence that exists contradicts the idea of a stupid, violent caveman dragging a woman back to his cave by her hair. On the contrary, the typical foragers are notably egalitarian and peaceful, particularly when compared to our civilization. But to someone indoctrinated to believe in the idea of “progress,” (a currently acceptable remnant of social Darwinism), it feels right. It feels like it makes sense, because that’s the story we’ve all been told: we started out as stupid, violent, barbaric foragers who tied our slave-women’s feet together with vines. Then, slowly, we became nicer and gentler and more cultured and came up with better, more efficient ways to reign in the people we enslaved. And then! Well, then we just got so gosh-darned smart and nice and wonderful that we decided that it was wrong to enslave people at all! And the shackles became rings that women wore voluntarily, because they just loved these new enlightened civilized men so gosh-darned much.
This is the kind of assumption that makes some otherwise well-read anarchists like Adrien Rain Burke believe that marriage is an inherently patriarchal institution. I reject this common (among leftists) stance for a number of reasons. For one, marriage is found in every society ever studied, patriarchal or not. The institution of marriage has traditionally been patriarchal in our society because our society is patriarchal. Look outside our culture and you will find many of the same institutions - family, religion, etc. - practiced very differently. And for each society, theirs is the only proper way of doing things. Marriage equals our culture’s marriage; everything else is just demented babbling.
In this way, getting married can be seen as implying your approval of your culture’s definition of marriage. Since getting engaged, I’ve noticed that I’m suddenly seen as allied with people whom I’d rather not have anything to do with. While looking for baking pans at Giant Eagle, a nearby woman notices my ring and notices the aisle I’m in and starts singing my praises. How wonderful that I’m getting married, even during these dark times when those filthy liberals and perverted homosexuals are trying to destroy America’s families. How proud she is of a good godly girl like me, who saves herself for submissive Christian wifehood even though maybe her boyfriend can’t afford a proper diamond ring (I swear to God, she actually said this), and so on and so forth. And I think, lady, if you’d met me before I got engaged, you would have labeled me a terrorist-loving, tree-hugging, fag-enabling feminazi. But now that I have bling, suddenly I’m the vanguard of conservative Christian values. Of course, I don’t actually think that as she’s ranting at me. My mind reels, and then I leave the store, and then I come up with some really hilarious one-liners as I’m walking back home. Somehow, people like this woman haven’t turned me off from marriage entirely. Meanwhile, others look at the history of civilized marriage and the cultural expectations connected to it and reject the entire idea of marriage as - well, as exactly what Crazy Giant Eagle Woman thinks it is.
Maybe it’s because I was raised a liberal, with a salvationist view of “progress,” that I can separate the idea of marriage from the practice of it. The argument goes something like this: not too long ago, marriage was little more than the exchange of a woman from man to man, with the bride having no say in what was going on. Now look - marriage has become a union of love, with both parties having equal say in the matter. There are still a few kinks to work out, but mainly, it’s getting better and better, and it’s going to continue getting better until it’s absolutely perfect and everyone’s equal in every way.” The fictional history of wedding rings from vines to gold echoes this sentiment. Though I now see the concept of “progress” for the wrongheaded, racist idea that it is, I still see marriage as something to be changed - or, if necessary, reinvented - rather than tossed out entirely.
It was this desire to bring a little tribal egalitarianism into civilization’s version of marriage that led to me researching the origins of various wedding traditions - and finding only cutesy non-answers like the one that starts off this article. Not only does the wedding mark the beginning of a marriage, but it provides a reflection of everything a given culture believes about what marriage means. I wanted to know what everything - white dress, veil, cake, flowers - represented so I could know what to keep and what to throw out. I know little more now than I did before I started doing the research, and I’ve come to virtually no conclusions except that conservatives and anarchists both fall for utter lies about where various wedding traditions came from.
It’s very difficult to redefine an inherently conservative institution; to replace your culture’s definition of something with one you prefer. But it’s vitally important for me - and everyone else in the tribe of Anthropik - to do just that. So that’s what I’ll do. And although getting married may imply my approval to some people, redefining marriage through my own actions makes more sense to me than boycotting marriage because it’s not presently what I want it to be. Lucy Stone, an early feminist, understood this when she married Henry Blackwell in 1855. Together they drafted an announcement that was read at their wedding, which outlined essentially everything I want to say about my own marriage (fast-forwarded a century and a half, of course) just in its first sentence:
While we acknowledge our mutual affection by publicly assuming the relationship of husband and wife, yet, in justice to ourselves and a great principle, we deem it a duty to declare that this act on our part implies no sanction of, nor promise of voluntary obedience to, … the present laws of marriage…
Although it feels good to pointedly not get married in protest of the current marriage laws (the way it feels right that wedding rings would follow man’s ascent from brutality to civility), it ultimately accomplishes nothing. Wait, I take that back - it deprives you of 1,049 federal rights, benefits, and privileges. (I like anything that will give you the opportunity to declare your love and leech off the government simultaneously.) Alternatively, getting married can give you street cred, so to speak, when you fight for greater equality in marriage. When a single person argues that the institution of marriage isn’t harmed by the inclusion of gays and lesbians, what does it mean to conservatives arguing the opposing position? What would a single person know about marriage? It’s far more effective for a married couple to cut in and say, “That’s bull and you know it. Our marriage isn’t harmed by this and you know it. So why don’t you tell us the real reason you’re protesting this.” (A humorous example of this was published last year, in the form of a blog post written by Brad Hall and Julia Louis-Dreyfus.)
Although Adrien Rain Burke entitled her article, “The Anarchists’ Wedding Guide,” implying that no anarchist would ever have anything to do with weddings or legal marriages, I stand by all the social and political implications of my marriage. When people like Jason and me enter any conservative institution, it changes automatically (for the better, in my opinion). If all of us threw the baby out with the bathwater, the baby would never get any cleaner.
I have heard there are matriarchal cultures. I think the person said they were in the Amazon or something. I don’t know if that’s true. She said the men have to focus on looking good I guess by being muscular and the women don’t care what they look like.
I also heard that different primitive societies have different tendencies of pairings. Tropical ones have more polygamist relationships. Ones farther from the equator have monogamous ones because they have to in winter to take care of the baby. Probably heard it here. I don’t know.
It’s a paltry squabble about “defending marriage” and all seeing as society is about to collapse, but I’m still interested and get insensed when I hear like a radio commentator say something about these political things even though it doesn’t matter because of that. They defend it by saying it’s a benefit to society because it brings a consumer/producer into the world. Well, your kids I’m sure will be real consumer/producers in the world in the natural sense instead of the economic, as you help them find their ecological niche in life and carry your forethoughtful, surviving genes to mix into the resilient and strong and beautiful tapestry of humanity left in the world.
Comment by planetwarming — 19 January 2006 @ 11:41 PM
And there are other matriarchal cultures where the women own everything and thus get lumbered with doing all the work, whereas the guys just bludge about hoping to cadge a meal and a shag. (In China, the Mosuo). Matriarchy sounds good, huh, guys? I just can’t understand why there are so many supporters of patriarchy about with deals like that going.
Seriously though, marriage in our culture is exceptionally hard work, perhaps because we have overlaid the reality (the creation of a production/consumption unit)with so much touchy-feely romantic BS that will not bear the touch of long work weeks, children, demented consumption binges, overdue bills, and so on. I have now reached the considered opinion that all ‘romantic’ entertainment content should be supressed as vigourously as porn used to be - impressionable young minds just should not see that sort of crap. They should see (our) marriage stripped bare for what it really is: capitalist industrial society getting cheaply maintained current and future workers.
The really weird thing is that as we are growing up, all of us have living examples of how horrible it is, in our parents and our friends’ parents. But somehow most of us manage to conclude that they are just sad middle-aged f*ckups, and we won’t turn out like that when we get married. Well guess again, suckers. There’s a reason those people turned out sad middle-aged f*ckups, and it’s called ‘marriage’.
I say all this fresh from the aftereffects of yet another vile and pointless argument with my SO at three in the morning…
Comment by Eric — 20 January 2006 @ 1:41 AM
And with mallards the guys gets all gussied up in vibrant colors and the girls sit around all drab. If anything our current standing of the girls attracting the guys is the oddity, both among humans and among many species. The male having to attract the female makes a lot of sense when you remember the equipment that comes attached.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 20 January 2006 @ 1:52 AM
If you mean the female contains the egg and this is a precious resource that needs to be competed for… we get this reversed through the institution of patriarchal property. With us, ‘The equipment that comes attached’ is money. Hence, the girls compete for the guys. Beautiful women are much more common than even small or piddling fortunes, after all.
Comment by Eric — 20 January 2006 @ 2:23 AM
“The really weird thing is that as we are growing up, all of us have living examples of how horrible it is, in our parents and our friends’ parents. But somehow most of us manage to conclude that they are just sad middle-aged f*ckups, and we won’t turn out like that when we get married. Well guess again, suckers. There’s a reason those people turned out sad middle-aged f*ckups, and it’s called ‘marriage’.”
Do you really think the marriage changes you, or does it just bring out those parts of you that you’d rather not see, as does any close relationship. My parents have a pretty damn healthy relationship, sure they fought when I was a kid, but not really all that much, and most of their fighting was instigated in some way by me. I recently returned to live with them for three months, with my new wife in fact. Yes it was hell for me, but not because they had a bad marriage (it just wasn’t any fun living at home again, for a number of reasons. They almost never fight now.
Even though they are both deeply immersed in the system and are sickening workaholics (my mom works 60 hours a week and then comes home and does constant home-improvement projects) they have a great relationship. Rather than taking their stress out on eachother, they help release it. In fact, their healthy marriage is probably the only reason my mother hasn’t suffered a total nervous breakdown or died of a stress related illness. They are a living example of a great marriage, and I can’t say that mine compares so far, but that is completely my fault, not the result of my upbringing, or the institution of marriage. In the end, marriage, as with most of life, is what we choose to make of it.
I guess that is just a really long winded way to say, take some responsibility for your own mental space. It is not the marriage that is flawed, but the way you relate to your wife.
Marriage can be a powerful and sacred union. Turn it into spiritual practice, i.e. in communion with your spouse, you will find true union with yourself and god, for in the end “I am Thou”
Oh, and Giuliana, don’t get so worried about the meaning of different parts of the ritual, especially if nobody remembers what they originally stood for. Symbols mean exactly what we percieve them to mean, so pick what you like and let it symbolize anything you want. My personal advice would be to keep anything you don’t explicitly dislike. Why, you ask? Though your conscious, rational, intellectual mind may not believe in any given symbol, your unconscious mind is much less flexible and is still powerfully influenced by any indoctrination you received as a child. You’ve got to keep it happy too, and it thrives on ritual and symbol, which were encoded more deeply than you realize earlier than you might have thought.
Another interesting note, I am currently in Central Illinois. Even in this bastion of the Christian right my wife never got that kind of approach (crazy giant eagle lady), but my guess is that it’s because she is only 1/4 northern european (the rest being hawaiian, japanese and portuguese). When my daughter was born the nurse asked my wife “Are you black or hispanic?” When I told her the mix she said, “Oh, white.” I said not really, but she informed me that the only distinction made for that particular birth record was black or white, and up to 1/32 black was recorded as black. Not really related, but kind of strange.
Comment by limukala — 20 January 2006 @ 2:42 AM
I wouldn’t say that the women have to do all the work of attracting mates in this culture either. Do a poll sometime, who has an easier time getting laid, women or men. Even relatively unattractive women can get sex pretty much whenever they want, it just won’t be with the NBA star in his new NSX.
The difference is guys don’t need to worry as much about how their body looks, they just have to worry about how expensive their clothes and car and house look. How many guys would drive porsches if it was easier to get laid in a Geo Metro?
Comment by limukala — 20 January 2006 @ 2:48 AM
The real question is how much would the Geo Metro cost?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 20 January 2006 @ 5:26 AM
Limukala, I believe you are quite wrong on this. Divorce rates in the US are, what, fifty percent? This is because people do not take responsibility for their mental space? Or is it because the institution is deeply and severely flawed (like many of our social institutions are)? Remember that marriage as it exists for us moderns is particularly weird. I think it is quite out of place to suggest that problems individuals experience with marriage arise from an improper mental adjustment on their part. This is analogous to saying that someone who hates industrial-era work simply has an attitude problem and has to get with the program. By the fact that you are browsing this site, I’m sure you wouldn’t agree with that kind of proposition when it comes to work relations, so I don’t see why you accept it for marriage.
Unrelated to your points, it has just occurred to me that marriage is not a social universal. I understand there were many societies in the past where there was no marriage (the male contribution to child-rearing was provided by the maternal uncle).
Comment by Eric — 20 January 2006 @ 8:08 AM
I read an article about in a primitive tribe in Africa the men let the babies suckle their nipples when the mother is away. I guess that’s why we have nipples too maybe. To assist and form a bond even though it doesn’t have a physical utility. It soothes the baby until they can be fed. I guess the modern replacement is the pacifier. Interesting.
http://www.afrol.com/articles/16592
Comment by planetwarming — 20 January 2006 @ 9:54 AM
There was a theory, developed by nineteenth-century social theorists, that matriarchy was one of the earliest “stages” of human society. The thinking of early anthropologists was heavily influenced by this, and they would often identify matrilineal societies as being matriarchal, when they were in fact egalitarian or patriarchal. (Of course, it didn’t help that these anthropologists were coming from a particularly oppressive patriarchal society, so anything less extreme than what they had must have seemed like it was run by women.)
A true matriarchy has never been studied by Europeans. It may be that one once existed and we killed them off before the idea of anthropology was invented. It may be that they were killed off before we even got to their land. But most respectable scholars will agree that matriarchy is absent from every society we’ve studied.
I think the culture you’re thinking of is the Tchambuli of New Guinea… right? The fact that the men acted more like our culture’s women and the women acted more like our culture’s men doesn’t imply that the women were in control. We associate those traits with being in power because those are the traits we currently expect men in power to have. What if the Tchambuli had been discovered in the 1700s? It would have been no shock at all - a patriarchy for sure. Of course the men would be concerned about their appearances and be sensitive and emotional and write poetry! That’s the nature of a man.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 10:27 AM
Actually… well, yes. That’s exactly what I’d argue. You present THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE as some monolithic being that can come into your home and beat you up or something. But it’s not. Marriages are made up of people. A marriage is a relationship. Would you say that because many friendships eventually fall apart, the concept of The Friendship is inherently flawed and any acquaintences that stupidly decide to become friends are doomed to failure?
Actually, I think you hit it on the head when you started talking about love and romance. I think oftentimes the reason that some marriages don’t work out is because the two partners have been trained to expect constant lovey-dovey ecstasy and no hardships at all. That, and there’s a cultural expectation of marriage. If you’re not married by a certain age, there’s something terribly wrong with you (especially if you’re a woman) and people start asking questions. Whereas when you get married, people start showering you with the praise and love and appreciation (Crazy Giant Eagle Woman) that is otherwise so lacking. So people may marry someone they’re infatuated with for no other reason than to fulfill cultural expectation and to feel like they can have a nice Hollywood ending. Of course, not nearly all marriages that end in divorce start like that. Like friendships, sometimes the married people simply drift apart. Sometimes they change in ways that don’t necessarily complement each other. Sometimes one becomes abusive. But I digress.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that rate of divorce is not necessarily rate of failure unless the purpose of marriage is to stay together for a lifetime, happy or not. Really, that’s only a virtue in cultures that obsess over virginity and the evils of sex. (Or cultures for whom marriage is largely a way of securing economic or political power.) I’m much more fond of the neo-pagan concept of handfasting, in which two people can vow to stay together for a year and a day, or five years, or ten years, or an entire lifetime, or anything else they can come up with. “Till death do us part” is not a vow that most people are capable of making, especially now that we live so much longer. But I’m not about to run around telling a bunch of newlyweds that they’re probably going to split any more than I’m going to run around telling small children that guess what? You’re NOT going to be “Best Friends Forever”!!! HAHAHA!!! Little bitches!!!
Um… every anthro book I have ever read completely contradicts that statement.
Could you name them, please? If not for me, than for all those anthropologists going around claiming that marriage is a cultural universal.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 10:45 AM
Hey –
Actually Guili, I think that is correct — that not all societies have ‘marriage’. Jason, for one, is fond of commenting on the New Guinea culture where everyone lives relatively solitary lives, leaving thier children to fend for themselves after age three… Jason, help me out here?
Aside from that one aberration, I think you can say that all societies have some sort of bonding structure to enable effective childrearing. In most cases, this is some sort of marriage, but there a few other variations. Unfortunately, I have to leave the ‘evidence’ to someone else, because all I know is that I have been pounded with contrary examples when I tried to claim marriage as universal
Janene
Comment by Janene — 20 January 2006 @ 11:05 AM
It’s not. There’s never been a matriarchal society. There are matrilineal societies, and matrilocal societies, but no matriarchal societies. Some feminists like to construe egalitarian cultures as “matriarchal,” but that’s just a misrepresentation of what “matriarchy” means. I’m something of a feminist myself, but it’s not the pater that offends me nearly as much as the archy–a matriarchy is equally and oppositely bad. But, none has ever been documented, and claims otherwise have more to do with First World politics than anthrpological reality.
Now that is true, though it has less to do with latitude than how you make your living (though, that is somewhat influenced by latitude, isn’t it?). There’s even a very few number of polyandrous cultures–but they’re all pastoralists.
The root of all misogyny reveals itself once more.
Bingo.
I think it’s because so many people enter a marriage with unrealistic notions. We have this idea that love is all fireworks and butterflies, that indescribable “spark.” Well–that fades. We think love is something that “happens” to us, and one day, it stops “happening.” So, we start towards divorce.
I don’t believe that. Fireworks and butterflies are nice–and Giuli & I have plenty of them, thank you very much–but they don’t last. They never last. They can’t. I think it was Michael who told me once, love is an emotion–and emotions come and go. I’m sure there will be fireworks when Giuli & I are 50 every once in a while, too, but even now, there are times I come home tired and cranky.
But “being in love,” if it means anything at all, indicates a choice. I wake up every morning, and for a few seconds between the Dreamtime and entering Meatspace, I have to remember all that I am. And when I roll over and see Giuli lying next to me, I decide to remember how much she means to me–and I decide to be in love with her for one more day. If that ever changes, it’s not because some magical force withdrew itself from me–it happened because I decided not to be in love with her anymore.
To me, marriage is just a commitment to make that choice every morning the same way, and no matter what else might happen, that’s a promise I can honestly make.
Your example is true, but irrelevant. Ideas of what marriage means vary widely, but every known culture has some form of it. Polygamy or monogamy of every kind; serial monogamy; gay marriges … but all of them are marriages. In many, many cultures, the primary disciplinary duties fall to the maternal uncle, but the parents are still usually married.
That, and, everything my beautiful blushing bride said with far more grace and eloquence.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 11:27 AM
I think you mean the Ik, of Uganda. They don’t really have any functional tribal or village life left. The only level of society they really respect is, well, the married couple. They kick their kids out, but they do get married.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 11:29 AM
If you can’t promise to stay with your partner for the rest of your life, then what’s the point of marriage? If all you’re saying is, “I vow to stay with you until I get bored and find someone else,” then nothing’s really changed, so there’s no reason for a wedding.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 11:45 AM
I’d argue that, if nothing else, at least it’s more honest than promising to stay together for the rest of your life, then not doing it. But you’re right - it’s not really a good thing in and of itself, is it?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 11:47 AM
Hey –
Jason — Hmmm… okay, my bad
Mike — this is a little off the beaten path, but there is a fantasy fiction author that I read one time with an ‘elven marriage’ ceremony. Obviously, in that context, its a little different as the particular elves are immortal, but nonetheless…
In the ceremony, the couple pledges to support on e another in all things so long as thier paths continue to coincide. Personally, I like that idea in that it acknowldeges that not one of us can say for sure who we might be next year, next decade, much less in fifty years. So wherein lies the greater (and more reasonable) promise… you can say A) I’ll stay with you til I die, even if we hate each other… or you say B) so long as we are together, I will devote myself to your needs, keep your trust, do all that I can to be honest, forthcoming and involved…
I prefer B).
Janene
Comment by Janene — 20 January 2006 @ 11:52 AM
Actually, that’s a good point. What is the point of marriage? Is it just to stay together until you die, even if neither of you is happy, or does it have more to do with treating each other well?
Handfasting is also more restrictive than the fantasy “elven marriage” vow that Janene mentioned, because a handfasting couple is not just promising to treat each other well until they separate, but also promising to stay together for an agreed period of time. (One year, five years, ten years, twenty years, etc.) There’s no guarantee that a couple promising to stay together for, say, ten years won’t start to dislike each other after three years. So it’s not quite the same thing.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 12:18 PM
The point of marriage is that you always know who your mother is–there’s always a question about the father. Every male has a secret, genetic terror of being cuckolded–because if you are, you run the risk of spending your time and resources looking after the survival of somone else’s genes. Marriage is all about the virginity and such because it’s the closest thing to a guarantee a man can get that he’s not being played for a fool, and his whole life isn’t being used for someone else’s gain. Which is pretty hefty stuff.
Handfasting is a good option to have on the table. This is why Jesus said people shouldn’t get married–because so few are up to making a promise like that. But I don’t think handfasting should be the only option. Handfasting should probably be used more commonly than marriage, since so few are ready for that, but for those who are able to make that kind of commitment, then we should be able to recognize that as a different class altogether.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 12:25 PM
Well, eric, everyone else already did a good job, so all I need to say is that there is a big difference between your job and a personal relationship, and that is choice. Most people don’t have a whole lot of choice regarding there work environment. That’s the nature of hierarchy. In a personal relationship between two equals, the quality of that relationship is entirely the product of choice. Marriage is exactly what you make it. The decisions you make are probably influenced by the culture you are in and the history of the institution of marriage, but at some point you have to take responsibility for your own behavior. (I’m not trying to say I’m perfect or that I’ve found marriage easy, but by blaming the problem on society, you avoid the issue and more importantly, give up any chance of a healthy relationship).
btw, I don’t think I said this yet
CONGRATS Jason and Giuli.
Comment by limukala — 20 January 2006 @ 12:58 PM
I’ve been hearing a lot over the past few years of a marriage strike by males in both the USA and Canada. Apparently Gen X and Y males are beginning to view marriage as basically a no-win proposition for themselves. From personal experience, I’d agree that marriage is not all that it’s cracked up to be. The novelty wears off quite quickly. I also don’t know very many happily married men. (In fact, I can’t think of any at the moment.)
In The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell observes that single men tend to look a lot younger than their married counterparts of the same age. There are very good reasons for this.
After a few years of marriage you feel as if you’d give almost anything for a good night’s sleep in your own bed and the ability to have some quality “me time” in the evenings, without being constantly disturbed.
I have come to classify people into two basic categories. There are those, such as myself, who really appreciate solitude at times. Then there are those who are constitutionally incapable of being alone for more than 5 minutes at a time. The latter always manage to have another to share their misery with.
If we’re honest, we have to admit that all relationships have finite shelf-lives. It’s unrealistic to expect them to last forever.
Comment by Peter — 20 January 2006 @ 1:02 PM
Well, if you want to go all the way back…
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 1:03 PM
Peter: Like Eric, you’re painting every marriage with a single broad brush and blaming the concept of marriage rather than the people that are involved. If a man can’t have some quality “me” time in the evenings without being disturbed, how is this the fault of The Institution of Marriage? Isn’t it more the fault of the wife for constantly bothering him instead of taking up a hobby of her own? Or both of their faults for marrying each other even though their personalities clash dramatically?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 1:07 PM
Let’s not forget that, in spite of all the talk about how sexist and patriarchal marriage is, the whole point is to take care of women. The consequences of marriage have to be permanent so that men can’t just say, “Our paths no longer coincide,” or in non-fantasy terms, “I like you, but there’s this hot piece of ass over there who looks better in a bikini than you do,” and leave their wives destitute.
Frankly, women have a hard enough time in our society. We could probably do without putting the idea in the heads of all of my old friends’ new husbands that those vows they took don’t really count. If it were up to me nobody would get married. But if you’re going to take those vows you damn well better mean them. We’re not talking about high school romances, deciding to go steady, or giving your girl a damn promise ring. Marriage is the big time. And if you’re not cut out for it, then you have no business getting in the game to begin with.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 1:08 PM
Once again, that’s true in patriarchal societies (i.e., societies that don’t allow women to earn their own living outside the home), but in forager societies everyone shares everything anyway, so a married woman isn’t any more or less supported than a non-married woman. To say that the “whole point” of marriage is to take care of women ignores forager societies - the kind of societies that we’re trying to create.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 1:33 PM
Giulianna,
I had an odd experience two Decembers ago with a male friend of 18 years.
Before I get into that, let me say that I have seen many relationships end because one or both partners became bored with the other over time. I have even had a relationship or two end because I had apparently “become boring”. (I confess that this is true. The ideal evening for me, in most cases, consists of reading on the sofa.) So I have come to view simple boredom as one of the more popular reasons women use to leave marriages and relationships. I don’t hear men leaving due to boredom. Maybe they do leave from boredom but call it something else?
Now back to my opening point. Last December I had a fight with this long term male friend and decided that there was no point in trying to resuscitate the friendship. Why? It had grown boring over time! Over the years we had turned into a straight male version of one of those constantly bickering old married couples that stays together simply out of habit. I felt a genuine sense of relief when I was finally honest enough to admit to myself that I didn’t want this friendship any longer. It had become a constant source of minor irritations and petty arguments.
Like I said, most relationships have a fixed shelf-life. Enjoy them while you can but don’t try to hold onto them after they sour.
Comment by Peter — 20 January 2006 @ 1:40 PM
Ah, the mysteries of marriage…
I can’t help but wonder, given the great breadth of differences out there, if marriage as an institution isn’t all about (a) who takes care of the kids [primarily] and (b) the responsibilities of two (or more) people having consistent sex [since sex is a powerful thing, it seems wise to have structures in place to make sure their coupling is socially harmonius].
Oh, and for fun, this was a writeup of a marriage ceremony we performed for a same-sex couple at the local college. Though one of us is an ordained minister (thank those internet churches!), the ceremony of course isn’t legal in this state.
WEDDING RITUAL
Celebrated when two people wish to marry.
Pacific Coast, Northern Hemisphere: Performed preferably in mid-afternoon (after the heat is starting to dissipate.
Auspice: Two people wish to be married.
Patrons: Heaven and Earth, God and Goddess, One and the Other.
This is a marriage ceremony, pure and simple.
First Movement
Dress
Formal dress.
What to Bring
An arch for the ceremony, preferably composed of two bent branches bound in the middle (symbolizing two people joining as one).
For Participants:
Each person should bring a gift for the bride and groom.
Perform a Standard Opening:
If this is not for members of the faith, then the following sections may be done solely for the officiant.
Cleanse the Self
Needed: Bowl of pure water, sage, fire (to light the sage), [ash,mud or clay]
The chosen Voice for the ceremony goes first to cleanse. The Voice invokes a blessing for the sage.
VOICE
Mother, hear this small voice. Bless this sacred plant and those that receive it.
The Voice is smudged with the sage and smudges the officiant (if the officiant is someone different). The sage is offered to anyone who wishes to use the sage. A bowl of water is brought to the Voice as everyone is smudging.
VOICE
Mother, hear this small voice. Bless this water and those that receive it.
The Voice washes both face & hands with the water and then deals with the officiant. The bowl is then offered to anyone who wishes to wash. As everyone is washing, the Voice invokes a blessing for the earth (either ash, mud, or clay).
VOICE
Mother, hear this small voice. Bless this earth and those that receive it.
The Voice is anointed with the earth (a circle, cross or dot is drawn on the forehead) and then anoints the officiant. The earth is then offered to anyone who wishes to use the earth.
Cleanse the Space
The Voice takes the used sage and smudges around the boundaries of the areas to be sanctified. Then, the bowl of used water is taken and sprinkled around all of the areas to be sanctified. Finally, earth is sprinkled around the boundaries of the area.
The families of the groom and bride are then brought up to offer their blessing to the officiant. The officiant must go to each member in turn and ask the same question.
OFFICIANT
May I have your blessing to conduct this ceremony, that joins your children in this sacred union?
FAMILY
Yes.
If someone in the family says ‘no’, the ceremony is stopped until the situation is worked out.
Set the Boundaries
The officiant sets the boundaries with the bridesmaids and groomsmen. The partner already at the altar simply watches.
OFFICIANT
Heart to heart.
The officiant touches their heart with their right hand.
OFFICIANT
Hand to hand.
The officiant takes the hands of the people near him
OFFICIANT
We make this place a sacred space.
The next person does the same thing, copying the movements as they say:
BRIDESMAID/GROOMSMAN
Heart to heart. Hand to hand. We make this place a sacred space.
Once everyone has joined hands, the officiant lets them bow their heads and says:
OFFICIANT
We thank the forces that have brought us together as friends, family, and community. One heart, one soul, one voice. So must it be.
CHORUS
(responding)
So must it be.
The hands are released as they await the second partner’s arrival.
Second Movement
The officiant signals for the wedding march. The second half of the couple comes in and joins their partner at the altar.
Call the Primals
(Optional for members of the faith…)
OFFICIANT
We call to the forces of the six directions. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Everyone faces north.
OFFICIANT
We call to the Northern Rain. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Everyone faces east.
OFFICIANT
We call to the Eastern Winds. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Everyone faces south.
OFFICIANT
We call to the Southern Sun. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Everyone faces west.
OFFICIANT
We call to the Western Lands. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Call the Eternals
(Optional for members of the faith)
Everyone looks up.
VOICE
We call to the Heavens, to the source of Creation! Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Everyone looks down.
VOICE
We call to the Sacred Earth, from which all life springs. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Perform the Working
OPENING HOMILY
OFFICIANT
We are gathered here to witness the joining of this couple into Holy Union. This is a sacred and joyous covenant, which should be entered into reverently, that each partnership may give to each other companionship, help and comfort in times of prosperity and adversity.
Into this sacred covenant this couple now desires to enter. The commitment of this couple has called us together because this union touches each one of us. A new family is established in our midst, and we celebrate that relationship.
QUESTION TO COMMUNITY
The officiant addresses all of the family.
OFFICIANT
Will the families and friends of these couples please join hands?
The officiant waits until the families and friends have joined hands.
OFFICIANT
This union brings together different traditions in the hope that a new community will arise, strong and fruitful. Theirs is a personal choice and a decision for which they’re primarily responsible, yet their life will be enriched by the support of the families and friends from which each comes. Therefore I have these questions for you:
The Officiant looks to the families and friends.
OFFICIANT
Do you affirm your continuing support and love to these couples as they grow in their respective unions?
FAMILY & FRIENDS
We do.
OFFICIANT
Do you celebrate with them the decision they have made to choose each other?
FAMILY & FRIENDS
We do.
OFFICIANT
Do you offer to them the best of your care and counsel in their times of struggle and your celebration with them in their times of joy?
FAMILY & FRIENDS
We do.
OFFICIANT
We recognize the sacred vow you’ve all taken as friends, family, and community. Remember what you’ve promised here and take it with you when you leave.
AN “ADMONITION” ABOUT THE NATURE OF LOVE & MARRIAGE
OFFICIANT
Love is a difficult thing. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.
Sometimes it’s a fire, burning with passion. Other times it’s slow, like a river winding its way through your souls. Sometimes, it shrinks so small it’s voice can barely be heard. In other times, it is so overwhelming you feel you could burst. But by taking this step today – by committing to each other – you have dedicated your life to love, in all the good times and the bad times, in all life’s splendor and all it’s ordinariness. You’ve dedicated your life to love and that is a special thing.
Remember part of that dedication is to nurture your love. Don’t let time go by without appreciating each other, without watering your love with the sound of laughter or the motions of joy. Don’t hesitate to tell your partner just how much they mean to you. Don’t hesitate to show that you care. Remember that we’re all in this craziness together and when things get bad, sometimes it’s just enough to hold one another. Nurture your love and it will never die.
Yes, love is a difficult thing. Don’t let anyone tell you differently. But that’s what makes it so special and that’s why we do it.
VOWS
The officiant turns to the couple.
OFFICIANT
So, having considered alone and together this commitment, are you ready for your vows?
The officiant waits for the couple to agree and then addresses the first partner.
OFFICIANT
Do you take this person to be your Partner, promising to provide sustenance, to console them in times of sorrow, to strengthen them in weakness, to share with them your happiness, and to keep their trust?
FIRST PARTNER
I do.
The officiant then addresses the second partner.
OFFICIANT
Do you take this person to be your Partner, promising to provide sustenance, to console in times of sorrow, to strengthen them in weakness, to share with them your happiness, and to keep their trust?
SECOND PARTNER
I do.
THE RING(S) EXCHANGE
The officiant addresses the first partner.
OFFICIANT
You have a ring? Would you put it on (his/her) finger and repeat after me: I, _____, take you, _____, to be my Partner, and with this ring, I commit to you and join my life to yours.
FIRST PARTNER
I, _____, take you, _____, to be my Partner, and with this ring, I commit to you and join my life to yours.
The officiant then addresses the second partner.
OFFICIANT
You have a ring? Would you put it on (his/her) finger and repeat after me: I, _____, take you, _____, to be my Partner, and with this ring, I commit to you and join my life to yours.
SECOND PARTNER
I, _____, take you, _____, to be my Partner, and with this ring, I commit to you and join my life to yours.
A PRAYER
The officiant addresses the audience.
OFFICIANT
I would like to now join together in a moment of silence, for regardless of tradition – be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Pagan – everyone recognizes the love that these people share for each other.
A PRONOUNCEMENT
The officiant turns back to the couple.
OFFICIANT
May the love that you feel and share today continue to grow deeper and stronger all the days of your lives. Having declared yourselves to each other among your families, friends, and community, you are now joined as one.
PRESENTING THE COUPLE TO GUESTS
The Officiant has the couple turn around to face the audience.
OFFICIANT
Ladies and gentlemen, assembled friends and family, I am proud to present to you, our newly joined couple.
He turns to the couple.
OFFICIANT
You may now kiss.
Final Movement
Release the Powers
VOICE
We thank those who have contributed to this blessed. May your well-wishes become a strong guide for this couple’s future.
Release the Boundaries
VOICE
Thanks to the forces that brought us together, as friends, family, and community. One heart, one soul, many voices.
Release the Chorus
(Optional for members of the faith)
While speaking, the Voice must tap their staff (or stomp hard) three times to ground out the circle.
VOICE
The circle is broken but never forgotten. So must it be.
CHORUS
So must it be.
The newly joined couple is sent away to music and the rite is over.
The final movement is done
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 20 January 2006 @ 1:46 PM
You can spend your whole life getting to know someone, and they’ll still surprise you. Because they change. They’re changed by knowing you, just as you’re changed by knowing them. In a very real way, you create each other.
I agree, a lot of people give up on relationships because they “become boring.” They’re boring, though, because somewhere along the line, one, the other, or both, decided that they knew everything about this person, and there was nothing new left. They lost their ability to appreciate the other. Instead of deciding that morning that this is someone they appreciate, they decided they’re not. That’s okay, in general. I decide many people every day are one-dimensonal, boring, and not worth my attention. That’s not true, of course, but I decide it anyway, because no one can appreciate everyone like that.
When a marriage dissolves because it’s become “boring,” I think there’s an unacknowledged choice in there–the choice not to consider how that person can be appreciated, to foucs on the annoying quirks rather than the redeeming virtues. People are like those pictures of the two people kissing–what you see depends entirely on what you decide to focus on.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 1:53 PM
I don’t know how many parents are here, but if you think marriage is difficult, trying having kids. It’s frustrating, difficult and about 20 times as hard to have a good night’s sleep or quality “me” time. For someone who loves solitude (like me), this can be very challenging, but does that mean the institution of child-raising is deeply flawed and should be abandoned?
I’d go so far as to say the primary purpose of marriage is not for the man to take care of the woman, rather it is for both parents to take care of their children. Marriage is about family, not about “me”.
I know, someone is going to say mention couples that choose to not have children, but let me promise you, that is a very modern aberration from the true cultural purpose of marriage. Until very recently, a married couple without children was seen as a failure, and pitied or despised accordingly.
Comment by limukala — 20 January 2006 @ 2:03 PM
I do have to point out that child-rearing, as frustrating as it can be, is easier in a tribal construct.
My wife & I & 3 kids live with a close friend and also my wife’s father. They’ve been invaluable in freeing up our time and energy.
Now, we’re planning on constructing an eco-village with a number of friends, some of whom have families. Letting our kids out to play in a safe area with people they know… oh man, I had a taste of it at a pre-school co-op I belonged to and there is no feeling quite like it. You know your kids are safe and loved and enjoying themselves and learning and…
And people wonder why I fight so hard for tribal living!!!
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 20 January 2006 @ 2:16 PM
Well, it’s too bad that’s not the world we live in. But in this day and age, making marriage out to be the relationship equivalent of a best friends forever necklace is probably not the most responsible suggestion to make. A marriage is two people promising to stay together forever. Not two people promising to stay together until they decide it’s time to start seeing other people. The second one is what we call “dating.” That’s not a marriage.
Besides, you know that even in foraging societies, men still have a competitive advantage. In non-civilized societies, the majority of a person’s diet comes from meat. Meat that comes from animals. Animals that are hunted by men. That means that the men essentially control the food supply. If women get some, it’s because the men chose to share it with them. But really, what’s to stop the men from keeping the resources for themselves? Or from using their superior physical strength to overpower the women?
And finally, let me just say that “boredom” is an absurd reason for ending a relationship. If you only knew how many people out there would kill to know someone well enough to be bored by them, it wouldn’t be something you’d be complaining about.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 2:16 PM
First of all, the world we live in does allow women to make a living for themselves. So no, in the world we currently live in, a married woman isn’t any more protected than an unmarried woman. Second of all, the world we live in is going to end in less than a decade, to be replaced largely by the world I’m talking about. And third, I think I made handfasting very clear when I posted this:
In my ideal world, you’d have the option of making a vow to spend the rest of your lives together… or the next year together or the next ten years together, etc. etc. It’s not “until we get bored with each other,” because a twenty-year commitment is still taken seriously even if you grow apart after five years. I don’t understand why death should be the only cut-off point, or why it has to be all or nothing.
There is no statistical correlation between contribution to food supply and gender equality.
– Anthropology: A Brief Introduction, by Carol R. Ember and Melvin Ember, page 252
Well, that should be obvious. If women don’t get any food, they starve to death, and then there’s no one to pass on the men’s genes. The tribe is wiped out. And because everyone takes care of the children (not just the biological parents), including unmarried women, that means that it’s only practical to share your food with everyone - not just your wife.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 2:43 PM
For me the concept of marriage (or friendship) comes down to one of family. Marrying someone is my way of saying, “I now consider this person to be a member of my family.” I have a similar view toward friendship. There are a few friends in my life that I would consider to be a part of my family, though unfortunately there is no kind of ritual or ceremony acknowledging this (yet). This kind of marriage is a lifelong commitment for me, although the nature of our relationships might change. But when I commit to a “family” friend or partner, I am indicating that I will play a physically and emotionally supportive role in their lives and expect the same commitment from them. I see it as similar to maybe the kind of relationships that tribal members have. They work together to maintain a solid support network for each other. Sure, it’s possible to leave such a group. But you’d be giving up a LOT - your whole way of life and livelihood. It’d be much easier to work things out. Maybe that means you can’t live in the same house. Maybe certain tasks or relationships need to be changed. But the bottom line is that the person who decides to abandon ends up being the more abandoned. In this society, that’s not really true. Whoever chooses out still has plenty of options - culturally, occupationally, residentially, emotionally.
I think that this culture’s emphasis on the nuclear family unit also puts a ridiculous strain on marriages. The parents are expected to fulfill nearly every role that was traditionally spread out among a much larger community. (And I think this is true of married couples without kids as well. Often they are expected to provide too many needs to each other.) With the switch to a double-income household (which has now become the norm to the point where most parents can’t not work), it’s a wonder more marriages DON’T end in divorce. And it’s one of the reasons why I can’t imagine having kids at this point. Because I don’t think the responsibility of raising a child should rest solely on two people whose only option is paid help.
Comment by Raku — 20 January 2006 @ 2:43 PM
All depends on how “modern” you mean. For instance, a married couple without children being seen as a failure is, to me, “modern”–only as old as the Agricultural Revolution, and the shifting needs of society towards an r-selected strategy. Children were desperately needed to offset the high agrarian mortality rate. Here’s what Brown wrote in he Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity: