On Marriage - Specifically and Generally

[danieldwilliam]

My sister has revised her wedding plans and I have been made redundant as Master of Ceremonies.

On the grounds that the wedding is quite small (circa 40 people) she’s decided that she doesn’t need a set of ushers and an MC to keep everyone sticking to a time table.

I am less convinced. I suspect that informally people are going to have to be sent to find people so that they can either be in a photograph or eat dinner. Badged as ushering or not this job still exists. Someone still needs to keep a handle on who should be where and organise the ushers.

Perhaps the events staff at the venue will run this element of the celebration.  I fear it may un-devolve on to the bride and groom. I guess we’ll find out.

I’m not disappointed. I confess to not looking forward to the job particularly. Rather, the job was fine but I had other hopes for the day. I’d hoped to spend the day supporting my daughter who is being a bridesmaid and wrangling the Captain who is being an insane two year old. Also, catching a few good whiskies with one of my brothers. So a day spent telling Bluebird her hair looks lovely whilst feeding the Captain crisps sounds more fun for me than helping to herd 40 people, half I don’t know and half I’m related to.

I’ve been asked to do a reading and that satisfies any desire on my part to be marked out as paterfamilias in waiting.

For there is also something about the symbolism of roles at weddings that speaks to status and relationships in families.

Firstly, most obviously, who you have taking on the set pieces in your wedding says something public about the closeness of those relationships.  Your best man is likely to be the male friend of the groom whom he most trusts; the man he would look for on the battlefield if things went awry, either to offer or to accept a rescue. If all it was only about having a humorous / ribald / embarrassing / really dreadful speech there are people you can hire for that. Get Stephen Fry or Frankie Boyle to do you a podcast.

Secondly, I consider marriage to have some symbolic role in joining together two families into one. Your mileage may vary on this and that’s okay. It’s not my job to tell people what marriage means to them (probably) but for me, and I suspect for other people too, marriage isn’t just about marking and making official a long-term relationship between two people. It’s about blurring the lines between two existing families so that they become one. 

So my wedding party consisted of two best men, my oldest brother as senior morale support and my oldest and dearest friend for likewise and for the speech.  My ushers included both of MLW’s nephews, now my nephews and were lead by my middle brother. When I’ve been involved in weddings in an official capacity it’s been for old school friends or my flatmate at Uni.

MLW included in her bridal party my daughter, now her step-daughter.  The father of the bride role left vacant by the death of MLW’s father was filled by her older brother.

So the process of marking out important relationships and familial roles is made public and explicit by roles in such celebrations as weddings and funerals.

It may well be that the symbolism my sister wants to lay out is – hey, I’m much more relaxed about these things than average; I don’t want or need to mark out an in-group and an inner group.

 So be it.

On a political note; perhaps there is a conversation to be had about marriage in our society.  There may be useful questions to ask ourselves about what marriage means.  Is there a role for a formally recognised family or are we just a collection of individuals contracting with the state?  Is there something particular about the institution of marriage that supports our society, our polity, our civilisation that means we need to agree about what it is?  Is marriage a contractual short-hand for changing property rights between people in limited ways in limited circumstances or does entering the institution change us and our relationships with each other, the commonweal and the state. Is marriage even the business of the state?

For me those are more interesting questions than whether we should extend the right (or the obligation) to be married to some people based on their sexuality. Particularly when we don’t appear to be able to agree on what marriage is for those people who are already eligible.

Comments

[andrewducker]

I think that once we have given everyone the right to be married, and it thus stops being the ball held just out of reach of some people, it will be easier to talk about what it really is.

I am very glad we have two ushers, a best man, and three bridesmaids, all of whom have excellent shouting voices.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think that's true.

It becomes interesting after homosexual marriages are accepted because then I think any change does begin to stretch the definition beyond two people in a lifelong sexual relationship forming a family unit (if only of 2 people).

[andrewducker]

Considering the multiple Polygamous people I know, I strongly suspect you're right.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I find it difficult (at first glance) to see how extending marriage to polygamous groups doesn’t change the nature of marriage beyond what I think most people understand it to be. This may or may not be a good thing. It may or may not matter at all. There seems to me to be significant difference between “2 people” and “more than 2 people”.

I wonder if the extension of marriage to polygamous people is the first change to marriage that affects how I experience my own marriage. Currently one of the uses of marriage is a signal of monogamy. It’s an imperfect signal to be sure. Don’t try and form a sexual relationship with me, I am married and not ever available for a sexual relationship with you.

That holds true for marriage whether it is restricted to persons of the same colour or of different genders (or sexes).

If polygamy were introduced it changes the nature of my marriage from a public binding declaration of a monogamy to not that. It changes the scope of acceptable behaviours involving married people and therefore changes the way people can legitimately interact with me.

Which again, may or may not be important and may or may not be more important than the benefits to those who wish to practise polygamy but it’s a change that affects me in a way that removing a colour bar or a sexuality bar doesn’t.

[andrewducker]

Considering the amount of open infidelity around the place, I don't have the same feelings :->

When we have the proper discussion of what marriage is there for, we can thrash this one out properly - about whether saying "I'm married" is about making sure that you can inherit and get power of attorney, or whether it's about protecting the kids, or something else.

Society is having to deal with this kind of thing anyway, due to the number of people who just don't get married, so having a proper conversation about it seems like a good idea.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

The prevalence of infidelity and consensual polyamory within marriage might render my point moot but I certainly remember the last time someone made a pass at me thinking “What the fuck, lady? I’m married!”

I’m looking forward to the conversation on marriage in the 21st Century. I think it is (the concept and the conversation) is an important pivot around which our society turns.

[andrewducker]

It may well, of course, just fade away. I found some stats:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/feb/11/marriage-rates-uk-data

and it looks like the rates of marriage have more than halved in the last 25 years.

With children born out of wedlock up to nearly half, I suspect we're going to hit some kind of tipping point in the next generation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9090627/BBC-asks-children-to-organise-their-parents-weddings.html

The question is, what replaces it, if anything? Are people not getting married because they can't see the advantages? And if so, is there something legal that should be made easily available with clear plus points?

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

Off topic, but I've just worked out what I'm giving you for your birthday, or at least part of it.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

That's nice.

I'm thinking of having a party but am struggling with the weather forecast.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

Not that I'm thinking you'd organise it around me, but just so you know: I can't come up in August but will be in E'b either c6th - 10th Sept or a long weekend over 22nd. Not sure which yet - depends on kitsitting.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

My plan – in as much as I have a plan would be, to have it on the weekend of my birthday in the form of bring drinks and nibbles to a sunny spot on the Meadows.

I’m currently not up for any form of structured event in the flat – certainly not of the volume of people who might come if I invited everyone I’d want to be there – so it’s a case of find a date when the weather is likely to be nice. That looks more likely in mid-August than mid-September.

Although, if we get back from Spain and the weather looks set foul for the rest of August I’ll change plans.

Applying principles of Open Space – whoever turns up is the right people to be there.

[andrewducker]

I feel the same way about my wedding :->

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

Your best man is likely to be the male friend of the groom whom he most trusts; the man he would look for on the battlefield if things went awry, either to offer or to accept a rescue.

I may be misunderstanding - apologies if so - but this seems unusually patriarchal for you?

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I was struck at the time of writing by the historical (& therefore more patriarchal) context of the relationships between men.

I've seen groomsman used as an attendant on a bridegroom or as the man who holds the horse & watches the back of the big chief.

I'm not advocating it as a way forward. Just struck by the (partial) grounding of male relationships.

[dpolicar]

Yup.

Really, the only thing that makes that last question interesting is how many rights, privileges and obligations are inequitably allocated as a consequence of most people's answers to it.

For my own part, I consider marriage one of three mechanisms that officially recognizes a family as a family (the others being birth certificates and adoptions), and I think officially recognizing (and encouraging) families is legitimately state business because families provide mutual support that would otherwise be a state obligation. Property rights are part of that, but just a special case.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Really, the only thing that makes that last question interesting is how many rights, privileges and obligations are inequitably allocated as a consequence of most people's answers to it.

Would you say a little bit more about this?

Families certainly provide a firm foundation for collectivism.

[dpolicar]

So, the question in question is "whether we should extend the right (or the obligation) to be married to some people based on their sexuality"

At the moment, lots of people answer this question in a way that causes people to be treated inequitably.

If that weren't the case... that is, if we all disagreed about whether we should extend the right (or the obligation) to be married to some people based on their sexuality, but we agreed that all other rights, privileges and obligations ought to be allocated equitably, including all of those which are currently contingent on being able to marry, I would consider that question uninterating.