Most of this drivel was written on Wednesday while I was trying to feverishly write a job application while I couldn't see and out my head with agony in my eyes due to not being able to touch them while in pain.So this is not going to make much sense but it was something in my head that just needed to be let out. It is a ramble - it does any an ending place or a finish. I wasn't going to post it where anyone but me could see it, but well if I can't share my thoughts and neuroses with my friends, where can I share them for free.
that being said - feel free to delete without reading :)
I am posting it now because I saw the above cross stitch pattern in the Hoffman's New Arrivals this morning and I think it is one of the few wedding samplers that has ever really really appealed to me. And that reminded me of these fevered scribblings .....
POST:
My eyesight is too blurry to drive and I'm supposed to be home resting my eyes and hoping the antibiotics work well enough to return to work tomorrow.
Instead I am at home, on the computer writing a job application for a position that closes Friday afternoon (it is Wednesday afternoon here).
I can't stitch, I can't read and I can't sleep. So by raising (lowering? making everything as big as I can stand it) I can actually read my monitor.
So while I'm battling through my application I take a break every time my brain gets stuck and read a few emails.
Stephen forwarded this to me this morning:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marriage-state-sex-2073700-marriages-people
Two things stood out for me from this:
From the article: As a practical matter, however, the government has so entwined itself into our daily lives that state recognition is important. Filing taxes as a married couple or as individuals makes a difference, as does the ability to own real estate, make end-of-life decisions or adopt children. Considering all this and the importance of equality before the law, the high court's decision was justified.
From the comments: marriage, from its earliest days, was not about love nor was it about reproduction. It was and largely is about property rights. Originally, marriage was the legal vehicle for a man to transfer ownership of his daughter to her husband. Along with any other rights of inheritance that might go along with her. And this transfer of property often too the form of an outright sale, with the family of the female paying the family of the male to take the burden of ownership from them.
And that is I always have and always will support between fully consenting adults, heterosexual marriage, same-sex marriage and even polygamy. Religion is actually irrelevant to the debate!
But marriage is more than just a legal institution isn't it?
When did religion get involved? When did the State get involved? When did marriage turn from a couple announcing to their village "hey we're going to shack up for a while - be exclusive" and then when they change their minds later down the track it is again just a general announcement to the village ....
When did that turn into the fossilised, institutionalised, emotional, religious, and legal minefield that it is today ???
The religious aspects of marriage have never interested or concerned me. Even when I was married it was a civil ceremony with nary a mention of God anywhere.
When people ask me why I wont marry again it is the legal aspects I cite. Never again will I have my credit rating tied to another person. Never again will I spend all of my pay packet for years at a time on the bills because someone else wasted all of theirs. Never again will I "go without" because someone else's needs and wants were judged to be greater than my own. Never again would I be forced into a situation where I have to carry a burden of financial and legal responsibility for someone else's actions.
Yes I am aware I am bitter over this :)
But recent events have reminded me to never say never. That there actually may be people who I could trust to not allow me to become their doormat. That perhaps I could enter this fossilised institution again (with all its attendant tax breaks and laws favouring married people) without a sense of impending doom.
But regardless of the legal ramifications, marriage is about more than tax breaks and law changes ....... if it were that simple then same-sex marriage would not be outlawed. If it were that simple do you think more or less people would be getting married ????
Hard to tell - because marriage is emotional.
Marriage, in the culture I grew up in is where you said to be "giving yourself" to your partner of the opposite sex. Where the gestalt is greater than the parts. Where you lose your individual identity and become part of a greater whole.
OK so that scares me - lets come back to me in a minute. But viewing that objectively ....
Why does it have to be between people of opposite gender? That statement is irrelevant of gender. And as for polygamy - it favours polygamy! Surely the gestalt would be greater again the more people you had in the marriage, the more people that gave of themselves ....
But again it doesn't work that way. Nor is it any where that easy :) So what *is* marriage*? WHY do people get married? What emotional/intellectual benefits to you get from being married?
Or is it simply cultural? Do people feel superior if they are married? Look what I have! Hands off this one is mine! The rate of divorce and adultery in this country makes that attitude laughable. Also considering your spouse as a thing to own and show off as a trophy or prize should be laughable and you need lots of therapy.
However, we are a society of ownership and status. I have a mate - I am better than you? That is the way our politicians speak ..... after all there is only one demographic that matters for the politicians ... working families .... {shudder}
Our society is geared towards feeling more favourable and jealous of those in marriages - look at he whole popularity of Bridget Jones and that type of humour. Does society consider us a failure if we are not married?
Does it matter to us what society thinks? Well actually yes it does. No man is an island and all of that. So we must be *aware* when we live a lifestyle that society does not approve of: single, same-sex marriage etc etc.
But will knowledge of what society thinks make us behave differently? In these cases I hope the answer is no. We need to be aware of what society thinks, but we should still live our lives to what makes us happy. We should be in relationships with people who make us happy and we make them happy - and society be damned.
So is that then what marriage is? Is marriage simply an acknowledgement that this person makes me happy and I make then happy. And we want to world to know that.
Or again is that tooo simplistic .......
So what do we consider as marriage today?
Is it a father selling his daughter? No.
Is it changing our legal status? Yes.
Is it giving up of ourselves to become something greater - depends ....
On an emotional level marriage is what you make it - and I guess the thing to do is to find out whether the other person or person's believe in the same emotional level that you do. And given that most people lack the introspection and forethought to discuss these issues (generalised statement) then is it a wonder that people make bad decisions?
However I still see nothing here that treats same sex and opposite sex couples differently. They still have to face the same issues and the same introspection. Polygamy is more difficult as you needs more than one person to have the same emotional responses to the introspection that you do.
But I still don't see where religion comes into it ....
Thoughts anyone?
16 comments:
Re religion and marriage. In just about every country I can think of, a civil ceremony in the form of a marriage license is a must for a marriage to be valid. Whether the actual marriage ceremony is performed by a judge or a clergyman, it doesn't matter as long as there is a valid marriage license. Conversely, you can have the biggest church wedding ever seen but it's not at all legal without that marriage license. Religion comes into as means for a deity to bless the marriage. Perhaps in earlier times, a church wedding was all you needed but in the 21st century, that marriage license counts for more. As for those who oppose same-sex marriage on the (shaky) grounds that it undermines the traditional family, well, aren't gays and lesbians entitled to be as miserable as the rest of us? Britney Spears had more rights in her 55-hour first marriage than gay couples I know who've been together for 25 years.
I'm thinking along the same lines. Religion hi-jacked marriage in an age where most people were superstitious. They felt they had to be blessed for the union to work and be seen to be 'legal'. Don't forget men were at the heart of this as there were no female priests in organised religion for centuries! Marriage now is so different - even many staunch Catholic countries (France and Italy for two) do not recognise church marriages so you end up with two ceremonies - state and religious. It is also a competion as to who can spend most on the whole thing which is ridiculous and what could be less pious!
A public marriage should be about the commitment and not about the expectations of others. For me if we ever get hitched, it will be the quietest commitment ceremony possible, real jeans and T shirt stuff. Its about your commitment to each other, the legal niceties are the important it, religion is optional! Yes, I agree about the same sex mariage issues even though civil partnerships are now legal here.
PS - your ex sounds like a real man-child. Me, me, me. At least in the UK, your have seperate credit ratings as it is scored on the individual at an address, not the couple. Debts are a different matter though!
Nope, not here... A marriage will not count as legal here if you only get married at church. In fact you can't call yourself legally married in such a case.
As a rule most couples first get married through the civil office and then proceed to have a wedding at church. But they don't need to go to church.
Well, from my neck of the woods, same-sex marriages have been legal since 2005. The law allows religious institutions to choose whether to marry them or not. Some do, some don't. Civil marriages between same sex couples are common. Also according to our tax laws here, once you have been living with a partner for 12 months you are as good as married - tax returns are filed separately but with both incomes considered for any tax benefits. Pension Plans require that you have lived together for 2 years before the partner can legally receive any benefits should something happen. Our credit ratings are treated separately except if you have joint credit cards/mortgage etc. - then they would be looked at together. That said, I have no desire to get married again, nor do I feel the need - I have been living with Doug for almost 2 years. We keep our money separate and each pay 1/2 of our living expenses. I have two grown children and 3 grandchildren - Doug has no children. He saves his money - I don't very well :-{ But, this is the way I "choose" to live and I don't feel obliged or pressured to do it any other way.
After I was married, but before we had children, DH and I did keep seperate finances. I had my own job/income/bills/vehicle/checking account/etc..... and he had his. I wanted it that way. Much like Trish, I spent more than he did on small things, he spent more on big things, but neither of us had any say in what the other spent as long as their bills were paid. Granted we were never in the situation where one of us didn't pay their bills, and I am not sure you could enforce that were one of the partners to decide to default on it, but we knew the base character of each other going into it. I don't think marriage needs to become obsolete. I think the benefits of it need to be seen in the long run. Humans do need to procreate. There would be no humans if we all stopped doing it. And while a man can work his whole life, and save up his money, a female bears the children. Without a partner, of any sex, to help with those children, her income is eaten up and she has no way to save even a fraction of what someone without kids can. She has to pay for childcare, alone. College, alone. Medical bills, alone. And where in this 20 years or so, per kid, is she supposed to be able to save any money to support herself? Depend on the kids? Hell no. What if the child she bears has a disability? Than her debts are higher and longer and no chance of the child supporting her. And what if she dies? Her children, at whatever age, then become property of the state. Everything she saved for them gets given back to the govenment to pay for the foster care. So to me marriage eveolved as a way for a woman to insure care for herself and her children, and to me, that is what it still is. I got married when I decided I wanted kids. Not for the purpose of being married. So, in a nutshell, to me, marriage is only important if you both intend on having children or you wish another to recieve your pension and properties when you pass on. Outside of that, I would say living together is just as viable as a long term relationship.
I think the whole religious aspect came into for a couple of reasons; for a very long time, religion affected every aspect of life. You had your uneducated, superstitious peasant class, who saw the will of god, or his opposite, in everyday things we now know the cause of - weird weather and its effects, eclipses, mental illness and deformities - all tied back to a message from heaven or hell, which the church itself was only too happy to reinforce, so they could continue their "elite" existence. And at some point, the ruling classes became so entwined with the religious institutions of the day, that it would seem some monarchs were on their thrones only because the church allowed them to be so; when you have that much power and influence over those that should be separate, well, there's no way it couldn't filter all the way down to the people of lowest birth. Add to all of this the fact that this started long before there were stable systems of governance in place, when one village had its laws, and the next one down the road had its laws - for many years, the church and its laws were the only unifying thing anyone had to make sense of what was going on around them.
Enter the Renaissance, and as the study and execution of law are becoming prevalent, the whole property rights issue starts to get wrapped up in marriage. And, in my opinion, this only happened because the church allowed it to happen, as they could benefit from it, too - widow/widower with no one to leave their stuff to, leave it to the church, so you can be assured a place in heaven. Eventually, the power of the church began to subside, in favor of the power of the courts, but the church aspect remained in marriage because... culture - it had been done that way for so long, it ought not change? The church's last grasp at the power and influence it once held, and the governments allowing them that one concession? Or just a human being's innate need to know if what they are about to do is correct, and who else better to show them a sign, to reaffirm what they thought they already knew?
And now, it's much as Sisu says. I have long held the not-well-formed belief that, if you are willing to get married, to tie two people together in a legal way - I leave all religious aspects out - then that means you and you partner are stating publicly that you will do your damnedest to not let each other down, sacrificing and sharing as required. To live together but not be married means you are somewhat willing to do the same, but there might be a line there you aren't sure you are willing to cross - if you die tomorrow, you aren't sure if this person is who ought to get your stuff and take care of what you left behind - kids, property, whatever. This is, of course, overly simplified, and since it would appear that I am 0/2 in this debate, I could be very wrong in all of my assumptions. And I could be entirely pessimistic and say that if anyone was ever really happy, no one would be making any money off of the weddings and divorces that drive our society, and we don't want that....
I'm not sure that I wrote exactly what I meant - I guess that might be more of a skewed history lesson that anything helpful or insightful....
But you don't have to be married to procreate is what I say.
Besides - if we stopped to reproduce the world would still keep revolving and prosper. Probably would do a lot better without us anyway...
Very thought provoking, Mel. My DH and I had this conversation earlier today on our way home from the market. Many of our friends/people we know are getting divorced after many years of marriage. My DH said that it really doesn't make much sense to get married anymore. If you do choose to divorce (at least here in the U.S.) the government regulates a lot of the issues...ie., child support, spousal support, etc. I have two separate opinions on that. 1- Good for the ladies that allow the spouse to do whatever he wants, who have been dumped for a younger version after 25 years of marriage, taking care of house, home and children, etc. 2 - Bad if both parties are able and willing to work things out, but the amounts don't "agree" with what the governments says it should, they are able to say you have to go back to the table and work it out again.
Also, the government has many more tax breaks for singles rather than married couples. I am not sure where religion comes into it either, I think it goes back to the middle ages, when the main expression of the government was the bishops and the church. They gained the right to "marry" people and it is still the main practice today.
I know. And many aren't. About 50% I would guess. And when the spern donor decides he is tired of the kids, he leaves. So marriage is a legal way to enforce the moral obligation that a parent SHOULD have to provide for their own offspring. Makes it a bit more difficult for one parent to fly the coop if they decide having kids 'just isn't for me' and leaving the buren of their care on the other partner. If my parents had not previously been married, then when my father died (after the divorce), my mother would have been financially cut-off. Because they were married at one point, she received survivors benefits to replace that lost income. I am not sure she would have gotten that if they had never been married.
And some people simply should not be allowed to procreate at all! But that's a whole 'nother blog entry.
Oh I completely agree with you there Tina !!!!! And it is something I've ranted on about long and hard - just not here :) :)
I am of the married but separate camp. Yes, I am married, but due to the fact that DH spends money like it's on fire and I hold on to it til the serial numbers are permanently inked onto my palms. We have separate finances. As for the religious issue. The only religious people in the entire place were the minister and my MIL. LOL! For the most part, except for the fact that all the people in my house have the same last name (including the dog); there are NO outward signs of marriage to be found. No rings, wedding samplers, or little glass bells with the date on them. I have been married to DH long enough to be able to remember the occurrence whether I want to or not. As for the whole procreation issue...we has that base covered before the "black tie affair." So we know where I stand on that issue. Let's just say that DH and I got married just because we "wanted to".
My two cents!
OK - one thing that you are taught when writing essays and reports is to focus on your intent and keep the message clear.
What has happened in this blog post is something more akin to a stream of consciousness (ala Ms. Wolff) so it transpires that there are actually two issues I am trying to wrestle with here:
1. The objective view of marriage
2. The subjective view of my own ideas on me getting married.
I'll get back to one in a moment.
As many of your know a short while ago I was engaged for three days. Now what I think happened was this (and Stephen please *do* correct me if I'm wrong or fill in missing gaps - I am trying to be objective about this most subjective of issues).
What happened I believe is that one night after hours of convivial conversation Stephen's Id rang me and kinda proposed. My Id immediately said yes which left my Superego flabbergasted and speechless.
My Id ran off at the rails for the next three days in a state of sheer unadulterated bliss while my Superego was frantically trying to haul onto the reins. Stephen's Id was definitely galloping along with mine sending me photos of rings etc. How his Superego was reacting I have no idea - I still don't.
Three days later we finally had a conversation that brought everything to a crashing halt. For the next while my Id was confused and hurt and my Superego was trying to figure what happened and where the Hell are we now?
A couple of weeks later my Id took over again, spent money that should have gone elsewhere and flew me over to Perth so my Superego and his could have a talk. It was a very painful conversation (I suspect for both of us). I learned more of Stephen's point of view and I attempted to explain mine and suggest a few compromises. I say attempted because even Now I fully believe that he doesn't understand what I was trying to say.
In the end I dumped the whole thing back into his lap and said "given these issues and where we stand, I'm giving it all back to you. You think about it all and if you still want to marry me ask me again."
He didn't. He hasn't and I have no idea if he ever will (especially given my firm believe that he still doesn't understand my stance on things).
SO - my Id is off sulking in the corner and my Superego is still trying to figure out what the hell happened. (I have no idea on Stephen feels about any of this - it hasn't been discussed).
So to get back to the whole point of this ramble ..... my Superego is still trying to figure out why my Id said yes in the first place. I had already decided based on legal, financial, distance and ideological grounds that no I was not going to marry this man. I even had even decided the wording of my answer if he ever did ask me.
But instead I said yes. And it felt right. And I'm still trying to figure out why.
And maybe by understanding what marriage *is* I would be able to understand why.
So please forgive the dual nature of all of my rambling - I'm trying to figure out a multitude of things at the same time.
Mel, your Id said yes because it is part of the very core nature of human beings to want someone 'there'. Not all the time, we need our privacy too, but 'there' when we want them, need them, or just want to talk. And though the internet, cell phones, and other forms of communication give us a network of instant voices to hear or words to read, I thing the human core of us (whether we admit it or not) craves a physical being with us. So your Id says "I want someone to have and to hold. I don't want to be alone."
Your Superego is saying "Nonsense. I don't 'need' anyone. I am a free person, I depend on no one but myself."
And betwixt the two, when Stephen said "Ya Wanna?", Id was screaming "YES!" too loudly for Superego's much quieter "Why?" to be heard.
Frankly dear, logic will never make you happy. It will only make you feel superior to those who succumb to their baser instincts. So do you want to feel happier or smarter?
LOL! Thanks Sisu - but I want to be both! I want to be happy and to know that I will be happy.
Thinking about this I disagree :) Or perhaps it just needs qualification.
I really detest the phrase "to have and hold". Its a bit like "honour and obey". How about we change it "to love and cherish".
I don;t want just anyone to love and cherish. If I did, I would still be married to el-Dickhead. or to Paul. Or even to Daniel the taxi driver who proposed even though we never slept together.
I know full well that I said yes because it was *Stephen* who proposed.
Hmm - so is that the next part of this journey through my psyche...
Off to cogitate why ironing my clothes for the week.
Post a Comment