My marriage rant
Wednesday, 19 February 2003 03:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
taimatsuRight, well, I thought I would write something sensible for once. This is hopefully going to be my long-awaited marriage rant. This is not connected to recent events, it's simply here because I've been meaning to get this stuff down for ages and I keep not doing it. Let's hope I don't get distracted.
Disclaimers: Any references to partners, uses of the word 'we', etc, are non-specific and should not be applied to anyone in particular :) I seem to be using 'sex' and 'gender' badly as well, and I apologise to any readers for whom the distinctness of those terms is particularly important. My meaning should be fairly clear.
Anyway, so, marriage. The basic premise for me is that religious marriage is the ideal way for me to construct a relationship. This is because I'm some variety of Christian; my belief is important to me, and I would want my relationship with and commitment to my life partner to reflect the importance of God to me. Hence, I would want the commitment to be recognised 'before God' as the phrase goes. The interaction of that pretty definite need of mine with the needs of a partner who does not share that belief is something I'm still thinking about. I also think that a committed two-person relationship is the right environment for me. I've tried some other options, and, well, hmm. So group marriages and other polyamorous permutations are not for me in the serious long term, as far as I can currently tell.
So, a commitment to my partner, before God. We could have a private commitment ceremony under the tres in the back garden if we liked, I guess, just the two of us, no-one else. Why would I be uncomfortable with that? Well, a very important part of the traditional Christian marriage ceremony is that you are not only marrying in the sight of the church, but also in the sight of the community. People always invite their friends and relatives to weddings. I'd want to have a ceremony to which I could invite my family.
Fine. Have a *big* marquee in the back garden, and invite all your mates. What else do you need?
Let's pause there a second, because the other element of the traditional Christian wedding is that it happens in a church, in a formal religious setting, a priest/minister officiates, and it encapsulates a civil marriage ceremony.
I'm now going to ramble in a slightly less connected, logical fashion, and hope I can draw it all together at the end.
My main problem with legal marriage in this country and most others is that it limits one's marriage partner by legal sex. I am bisexual. I have said many things about my orientation and my relative levels of attraction to men versus women over the past few years, but in the end, I really rather like both. Dismiss from your mind the myth (which I'm pretty sure none of you were entertaining anyway) that a bisexual person needs to have a partner of each sex to feel sexually fulfilled or whatever. All it means for me is that I might end up with someone of either gender, or maybe even someone who doesn't fit those labels.
Suppose I were to end up with a male partner, let's say, and suppose, just for the sake of argument, that I have no other problems with going through a plain civil marriage ceremony, and neither does he. As far as I can tell now, I wouldn't do it, even if I were dying to affirm my commitment to him and provide a stable legal basis for our partnership, children, etc. I couldn't go through with a ceremony that I was only allowed to have because of something totally irrelevant to the essential nature of my relationship.
The marriage ceremony, because it is only available to heterosexual unions, seems to me to be not just celebrating a relationship and a commitment, but elevating the fact (which to me is absolutely trivial) that my partner is a man. I don't care if my partner is an anthropomorphic mongoose, the important thing is the bond between us. A ceremony which I can only have because I went one way on the bisexual see-saw and not the other really offends me. Am I making sense? It seems to be saying something very loudly which isn't important at all, and for me it rather drowns out the important bits.
If I were to end up in a situation where I wanted to commit myself to a male partner, I might find myself feeling differently. For now, that's the way it is.
So, thus far, I seem to have said 'Explicit commitment in relationships is great! But legal marriage is a bit crap!' This isn't incompatible with the marquee-in-the-back-garden DIY non-legal commitment ceremony idea, though. Why am I not plumping for that?
That's a lot more complicated. It probably links in with my complex relationship with the established church, and my history as a fervent Catholic, and then a less-fervent one, and now a lapsed one. I don't understand it. I seem to feel that weddings happen in churches, because that is the *right* way to do it. There's something to do with apostolic succession in there, not that I really believe that means much, and the authority of ordained ministers, not that I believe that God requires a ceremonial laying-on-of-hands to give the blessing of that kind of vocation and authority.
I will keep mumbling about this bit. Prod me if I forget.
Disclaimers: Any references to partners, uses of the word 'we', etc, are non-specific and should not be applied to anyone in particular :) I seem to be using 'sex' and 'gender' badly as well, and I apologise to any readers for whom the distinctness of those terms is particularly important. My meaning should be fairly clear.
Anyway, so, marriage. The basic premise for me is that religious marriage is the ideal way for me to construct a relationship. This is because I'm some variety of Christian; my belief is important to me, and I would want my relationship with and commitment to my life partner to reflect the importance of God to me. Hence, I would want the commitment to be recognised 'before God' as the phrase goes. The interaction of that pretty definite need of mine with the needs of a partner who does not share that belief is something I'm still thinking about. I also think that a committed two-person relationship is the right environment for me. I've tried some other options, and, well, hmm. So group marriages and other polyamorous permutations are not for me in the serious long term, as far as I can currently tell.
So, a commitment to my partner, before God. We could have a private commitment ceremony under the tres in the back garden if we liked, I guess, just the two of us, no-one else. Why would I be uncomfortable with that? Well, a very important part of the traditional Christian marriage ceremony is that you are not only marrying in the sight of the church, but also in the sight of the community. People always invite their friends and relatives to weddings. I'd want to have a ceremony to which I could invite my family.
Fine. Have a *big* marquee in the back garden, and invite all your mates. What else do you need?
Let's pause there a second, because the other element of the traditional Christian wedding is that it happens in a church, in a formal religious setting, a priest/minister officiates, and it encapsulates a civil marriage ceremony.
I'm now going to ramble in a slightly less connected, logical fashion, and hope I can draw it all together at the end.
My main problem with legal marriage in this country and most others is that it limits one's marriage partner by legal sex. I am bisexual. I have said many things about my orientation and my relative levels of attraction to men versus women over the past few years, but in the end, I really rather like both. Dismiss from your mind the myth (which I'm pretty sure none of you were entertaining anyway) that a bisexual person needs to have a partner of each sex to feel sexually fulfilled or whatever. All it means for me is that I might end up with someone of either gender, or maybe even someone who doesn't fit those labels.
Suppose I were to end up with a male partner, let's say, and suppose, just for the sake of argument, that I have no other problems with going through a plain civil marriage ceremony, and neither does he. As far as I can tell now, I wouldn't do it, even if I were dying to affirm my commitment to him and provide a stable legal basis for our partnership, children, etc. I couldn't go through with a ceremony that I was only allowed to have because of something totally irrelevant to the essential nature of my relationship.
The marriage ceremony, because it is only available to heterosexual unions, seems to me to be not just celebrating a relationship and a commitment, but elevating the fact (which to me is absolutely trivial) that my partner is a man. I don't care if my partner is an anthropomorphic mongoose, the important thing is the bond between us. A ceremony which I can only have because I went one way on the bisexual see-saw and not the other really offends me. Am I making sense? It seems to be saying something very loudly which isn't important at all, and for me it rather drowns out the important bits.
If I were to end up in a situation where I wanted to commit myself to a male partner, I might find myself feeling differently. For now, that's the way it is.
So, thus far, I seem to have said 'Explicit commitment in relationships is great! But legal marriage is a bit crap!' This isn't incompatible with the marquee-in-the-back-garden DIY non-legal commitment ceremony idea, though. Why am I not plumping for that?
That's a lot more complicated. It probably links in with my complex relationship with the established church, and my history as a fervent Catholic, and then a less-fervent one, and now a lapsed one. I don't understand it. I seem to feel that weddings happen in churches, because that is the *right* way to do it. There's something to do with apostolic succession in there, not that I really believe that means much, and the authority of ordained ministers, not that I believe that God requires a ceremonial laying-on-of-hands to give the blessing of that kind of vocation and authority.
I will keep mumbling about this bit. Prod me if I forget.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 19 February 2003 07:51 am (UTC)I have seen people who think that *anyone* bi or poly or just who strongly believes in equality in these things shouldn't marry though, and I don't think that's a good thing. Personally to me saying "I will not marry, because gay people can't marry" is not much different to saying "I will not eat, because people in Ethiopia can't eat" - it doesn't actually do anything to help the cause. You can still campaign for equal rights even if you're enjoying some of those rights yourself, and I think in the same situation that's what I'd choose to do.
It's possibly harder for you because you have the religious aspect to take into account as well, and the church seems more unforgiving on these things than the state for the most part. I hope to see civil marriages between partners of the same sex become common in my lifetime, preferably within a decade or so, I expect it will take rather longer for the church to feel the same, if ever. Mind you I don't have quite so much hope for multi-partner civil marriages, but it would be nice if people in those groupings had the same rights. I admit it's an area I feel less strongly about though.
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 19 February 2003 10:10 am (UTC)"gay people can't marry" isn't even true; AIUI there are already several countries where same-sex partners can get married. It's definitely starting to happen.
Mind you I don't have quite so much hope for multi-partner civil marriages, but it would be nice if people in those groupings had the same rights.
To be honest the legal rights shouldn't be anything to do with the relationship. It should be possible for people to grant inheritance, visiting rights in hospital, next-of-kin status, guardian-of-child status, receipt of life insurance benefits, and so on and so forth, to whoever (and whatever number of people) they deem appropriate -- partner(s), family, housemates, friends, whatever. (Some of these things are already possible, just more of a hassle to sort out if you're not married.)
IMHO the nature of the relationship(s) should be up to the individual(s) to work out; the nature of the ceremony likewise. To some extent this is already practically (if not theoretically) true -- the state doesn't actually intervene in the nature of your relationship, I'm certainly not going to get my marriage licence taken away from me for having other concurrent relationships; and a lot of the ceremony is customisable whether you go for a religious ceremony or a civil one.
Anyway, just my 0.02p's worth. Feel free to ignore it.
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 19 February 2003 11:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Wednesday, 19 February 2003 10:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Wednesday, 19 February 2003 11:59 pm (UTC)How would you feel about a marriage which was religious but not civil? Parts of the Church are getting around to blessing same-sex unions, though there's so much heat around that at present I'm not sure I'd do it.
As for ordained ministers etc., remember that marriage is the only sacrament not celebrated by the officiating clergy (well, emergency baptism is another one, but that's borderline irregular). The sacrament is celebrated by the two people involved, with the priest & community present as witnesses and to (in the conventional, social sense) celebrate the union.
Bleh. Difficult. *sigh* Good luck on the thinking and mumbling!