[ previous: "my private mythology" ] [ return to the present ] [ next: "practical babble" ]

25 June 2002 (Tuesday): on matrimony

Sorry folks, I'm bloggy today.

So this article, about reviving the institution of marriage, has got me annoyed. Look. If the issue is kids, I'm willing to bet any kid with a loving family is in pretty good shape, whether the family consists of a single mother and lots of cool neighbors or a gay couple who adopted or the conventional mom-and-dad thing. It's the commitment of love that makes the difference, not your tax filing status.

If you're not talking about children, then what does it matter? Some people don't want to stay with one lover all their lives. Some are fine with the prospect of solitude in old age. People will love each other for a while, as well as they can; sometimes they last, sometimes they don't. Sometimes it's best to work things out and come out stronger on the other side; sometimes it's wise to part ways and live with the bitterness. To some people the idea of matrimony is silly, even dangerous, and who's to tell them differently? Live your life as you choose, and accept what comes with your decision. The institution of marriage, this heterosexual 'til-death-do-us-part monogamous contract, is well and good for some, but to force it as a one-size-fits-all model onto all relationships is a tad outrageous.

Me, I wanna get hitched. I am a creature who mates for life; I've known this since childhood. With the right person, I will make the promise of always. He'll be the father of my children, I the mother of his, and in the crazy wonderful marathon endeavor of raising them we'll be partners who share a deep sense of trust and respect. If needed, we'll make personal sacrifices for one another; this is a price we'll be willing to pay for what we have together. In return we'll inspire and protect and support each other, and when he draws his last breath I'll be holding his hand.

That's how I want it my story to be written. As it happens, this puts me in the same camp as the majority of Americans (I am, somewhat to my dismay, thoroughly heterosexual; I like the idea of being "plumbing-indifferent"), so marriage lines up nicely with what I have in mind. But I'm the last to presume that the altar is for everyone. Some people believe in a love that profound, but without the always part, which I freely admit to be more levelheaded than my notions on the subject. Some people believe in the essential concepts but resent the institution. Fair enough. Human existence is a spectrum. Find your place in it and be happy.

And all you supposed marriage experts, please shut the hell up already.

posted by enjelani @ 06:07 PM PST

Replies: 6 comments

Soren, if you didn't have her already, i'd move to wherever the hell she is ;) Not because I want to get married (I don't know that I do), but because she so obviously knows how to differentiate between what she wants in life and what others should have the freedom to chose in life...

Far *FAR* too few people seem to grasp that concept that what is right for them isn't right for everyone.

I'm pretty damn conservative in actions, pretty damn liberal in views. I see no dichotomy there... That's exactly the point I try to make; You don't have to be a participant in something to know that it's *okay* to participate in it.

* Sits down squarely in the middle of the Enjelani bandwagon :) *

posted by syndromes @ 25 06 2002 08:41 PM PST

If you came up with "plumbing-indifferent", I am scared in a wonderful kind of way, because I've been using that phrase for years now. :)

I think that the best family is chosen family, whether there are blood ties or not. I also believe that the current (and historical) definition of matrimony is even more confining than qualifying one's sexuality using only "gay" and "straight". I contain multitudes, to quote Uncle Walt.

D and I made a promise almost a year ago in a very personal ceremony, and based on

• the intention of being in for the long haul,
  
• an arrangement to take every anniversary to review the past year and communicate about how to make things just as good if not better in the year to come,
  
• the understanding that we value each other's promises enough to not have to make them in front of a throng of people and back them with legal mumbo-jumbo, and
  
• a mutual agreement that any socio-legal institution that discriminated against so many was not something we wanted to sign our names to.

posted by Moonpuddle @ 25 06 2002 10:59 PM PST

Someone explain to me how Republicans can constantly spout off about individual rights of choice when it comes to important things like raising fuel efficiency standards ("I'm not going to tell some mother in Ohio that she can't own an SUV" -Trent Lott), but they can't resist meddling in individual choice when it comes to, well, individuals choosing how to live their own lives.

In the former example, individual choice is affecting all of us (harming the environment), but when it comes to marriage, that's just two people making a personal decision.

posted by soren @ 26 06 2002 11:11 AM PST

actually, Moonie, i stole "plumbing-indifferent" straight out of your blog. :)

the one thing that concerns me about my "whatever floats your boat" philosophy is the legal aspect. married couples are placed in a different category from other serious relationships, which is unfair to be sure...so where should the line be drawn? the firefighters who died at the WTC last September: their life-mates, whether they're wives or gay partners or covivants, should certainly receive any compensation that the government's handing out. but how would one define "life-mate" legally, if not through some legally binding contract like marriage? should someone's girlfriend/boyfriend of two months be eligible? six months? a year? if they were living together? what's the criteria?

i suppose first thing is simply to extend the legal definition of marriage to encompass all "we're in this for keeps" arrangements between consenting adults. one will never know whether they mean what they say, but no one can verify the sincerity of promises like that anyway. a society free of pigeonholing labels would be ideal, but that ain't gonna happen, so the next best thing is to broaden the definition to cover everyone who wants to be included.

i just worry that if something should happen to D, they might turn you away, Moonie, because they don't understand who you are to him without the instant recognition of the word "wife." :( but maybe you've looked into that already.

posted by enjelani @ 26 06 2002 12:54 PM PST

Mr. S - if i ever get me a bandwagon, i'll paint it full of SCHWANTZES ;) you know, the LUUUUUV wagon...

seriously though, i'm with ya. conservative in actions, liberal in views: right on. hell, maybe it was *your* bandwagon to begin with. :)

posted by enjelani @ 26 06 2002 02:19 PM PST

We have looked into quite a few documents that preserve certain rights, like durable powers of attorney and such. The insurance thing would be nice, but personally I think that places like Canada and Japan with socialized medicine are the way to go, and that way it wouldn't matter.

As far as inheritance, the laws might be rewritten to leave everything to any dependent child, otherwise to charity unless specified in a will?
That would keep people on the ball.

As far as society recognizing a couple...time, I guess...only time.

posted by Moonpuddle @ 26 06 2002 09:26 PM PST