What is marriage?

[Jennifer5]

What is marriage?

This is a very open ended topic, I don't know exactly what I'm looking to get out of this.

I'm from a family of people who are good evidence of the 50% (or less) that do last, my aunt/uncle with 20 years and my grandparents with 50+.

Clearly, marriage does work some of the time.

Then my mom, two divorces. Then, soooo many others who have ended up divorced.

Then there is my brother who has been with his girlfriend for over 5 years, he's only 25.

When I run across the question, "do you want to get married someday?" I always find myself saying no. Not because I don't want a loving relationship, I do... but because I don't really believe that marriage means anything anymore.

For my generation and my brother's, this is not an uncommon feeling.

We are here fighting for equal marriage rights though, so I ask... what is it about this commitment that still means so much too us/you?

Homosexuals want is so badly and the heterosexuals refuse to give it the respect it deserves.

[Alecto]

I'm not sure everyone'll think it's a good thing, but I try to take marriage where it's at. Ok, a lot of people screw it up: when it happens that often, I don't know if we can blame the individual, y'know? I think it really does just come down to the idea that it's difficult to make even a seemingly healthy and stable romantic relationship last. I try to accept that, and I try to accept that forever-type relationships of any kind (friendships etc) are rare.

Marriage to me is saying "yep, it's rare, but I'm willing to give it a try". And maybe you make it or maybe you don't. The other part of my acceptance of the fleetingness of various relationships is that I don't think that the quality or value of the relationship is at all cheapened by it's limited duration. It takes so much more than love to make something WORK, so I don't think that just because something didn't work that two people didn't really love each other.

[Daniel]

Yes- I think it does. For me anyway.

There is commitment itself. Can one have that without a pace of paper? Certainly. But this is where things get sticky.

So- one is committed. This means taking on a responsibility. And it is very difficult to execute that responsibility without some vehicle. And right now, marriage is that vehicle.

The trouble- as I see it- is that many believe marriage to be something it isn't.

Barney Frank often says that gay marriage doesn't take away from anyone's marriage. And he is right. Marriage isn't an institution that is in anyway tarnished by same-sex couples getting hitched. It's not a monument in some park that is being defaced.

If anything, marriage is a contract. A vehicle by which two people can take care of one another. Could we design a system whereby we do the same thing but call it something else? Perhaps. But my sense is that this isn't a viable solution. At least not right now. We are stuck with the word for good or ill.

[christa08]

Marriage to me is saying "yep, it's rare, but I'm willing to give it a try". And maybe you make it or maybe you don't. The other part of my acceptance of the fleetingness of various relationships is that I don't think that the quality or value of the relationship is at all cheapened by it's limited duration. It takes so much more than love to make something WORK, so I don't think that just because something didn't work that two people didn't really love each other.

This is pretty much perfectly put. I think a lot of people get married because they think that's what they're supposed to do and then once they're married, they see how hard it is and jump the ship. For marriage to work, you have to be selfless and commit yourself to the other person. If the couple doesn't put in the hard work to make it last, it just won't. Plain and simple. Marriage is hard...but anything that's worth something takes hard work. Marriage is definitely worth it. (At least for me ;) marriage isn't for everybody.)

Even if down the road, my husband and I (God forbid) go seperate ways, I will know that we had an amazing run and loved each other very much. I would never disrespect him because he has been the one person there for me through everything.

[Jennifer5]

Even if down the road, my husband and I (God forbid) go seperate ways, I will know that we had an amazing run and loved each other very much. I would never disrespect him because he has been the one person there for me through everything.

I think that right there is why people still do it. They know that no matter what happens in the end, they will never regret the love they felt for the other.

Alecto, I think you're right... perhaps we can call it a 'leap of faith'?

Daniel, I agree that the piece of paper is important because of the rights that come with it. So are you saying that for you, the only reason to get married... instead of just being with a person is the legal rights?

...because that's kind of where I'm at. That commitment can happen without a marriage. You can love a person and promise to spend the rest of your life with him/her and if you really do love him/her you can make it work. In fact, Daniel, I think you're one incredible example of that!

So, given that you have made your relationship work, without a legal marriage. Is marriage just signing on for equal rights?
(Sorry, too repetitive.)

[u-dog]

Marriage is the daily decision of two people to be naked (physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually) in the presence of another person and to not be ashamed.

Marriage is the daily decision of two people to stand back to back with each other to face the difficulties of life and to defend each other fiercely from others and even from themselves.

Marriage is the daily decision of two people to honor each others imperfections as deeply as they honor their perfections.

Marriage is the daily decision of two people to go deeper in their knowledge of the other person

Marriage is the daily decision of two people to stay put and work things through rather than turning and walking away.

Marriage is the daily decision of two people be open to the new life that can spring from their love (sometimes this comes in the form of babies... but only sometimes)

[Jennifer5]

Marriage is the daily decision of two people to be naked (physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually) in the presence of another person and to not be ashamed.

Marriage is the daily decision of two people to stand back to back with each other to face the difficulties of life and to defend each other fiercely from others and even from themselves.

Marriage is the daily decision of two people to honor each others imperfections as deeply as they honor their perfections.

Marriage is the daily decision of two people to go deeper in their knowledge of the other person

Marriage is the daily decision of two people to stay put and work things through rather than turning and walking away.

Marriage is the daily decision of two people be open to the new life that can spring from their love (sometimes this comes in the form of babies... but only sometimes)
I think we might all begin to believe in marriage again, if we understood that this is what we were agreeing to. I love you definition! :love:

[Daniel]

Daniel, I agree that the piece of paper is important because of the rights that come with it. So are you saying that for you, the only reason to get married... instead of just being with a person is the legal rights?

...because that's kind of where I'm at. That commitment can happen without a marriage. You can love a person and promise to spend the rest of your life with him/her and if you really do love him/her you can make it work. In fact, Daniel, I think you're one incredible example of that!

So, given that you have made your relationship work, without a legal marriage. Is marriage just signing on for equal rights?
]

U-dog puts it nicely.

I started from a different perspective- a practical and legal one.

Did I get married only for the rights? That's an interesting question. For the fact is that, even with my Canadian piece of paper, I have precious few rights. And that was the second 'marriage'. The first time was a ceremony with no legal significance whatsoever.

The Buddhist ceremony that my husband and I participated in was - simply put- about honoring and celebrating the love and commitment we were making to one another.

[BenL]

The Buddhist ceremony that my husband and I participated in was - simply put- about honoring and celebrating the love and commitment we were making to one another.

This statement and U-dog's poetic definition of marriage shows marriage as the dynamic state it is. Marriage is essentially a formal relationship (contractual and/or covenental) between two people.

Marriage dies when it becomes static, existing in an unchanging state. To me, the phrase "institution of marriage" connotes such a state. The last thing I want to do is live in an institution. Love itself is a dynamic life force. It is ever-changing, just as the people who love and are loved.

Marriage is the cultural and legal manifestation of the relationship between two people. It is society's way of sanctioning and promoting that relationship. It is, as Daniel says, the vehicle that carries two people's love through the labyrinth of life, culture and law. That's why I think that equality will only come when we all have marriage. Do you think straight folks would settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships?

[Zerbie]

I like what U dog says; it's very much like that.

What hubby likes to say is that we're married because we not only love each other, but LIKE each other a lot (LOT!), and we want to be together. We want to be around each other. All. The. Time.
That's a good reason to get married. :):love::love::love:

Before we married, I always thought that the real covenant was the commitment shared and expressed between the two persons in private vows. I was astounded by how very different life became once we shared public, and publicly, socially, religiously, societally ACKNOWLEDGED vows in addition to our private commitment.

I considered us an inseparably linked, exclusively committed unit the day we got engaged. But once we were publicly and socially 'married,' oh my god, was there another level of experience! There is a whole 'nother thing out there: a level beyond even the resolve of the two persons involved. When your whole family, social group, community and government recognize that you are 'married,' it is a completely different experience - for me, I felt it as an emotional-kinesthetic alteration in the way I live in the world. Perhaps an analogy would be like it's the difference between stepping into a bathtub versus stepping from a beach into the ocean. It just feels really, really different and far more expansive. Or at least, it does to me.

Once I experienced that transformation of 'being married,' I understood that marriage equality for all couples is important Not Only philosophically and Not Only from a practical standpoint of requiring access to partner visitation in hospitals etc., but also from a psycho-social-emotional standpoint of true belonging in the greater community of life. There is something sacramental about even the civil marriage license. Perhaps that's what bugs those who think gay couples should not participate, though I shall never understand wanting to deny any couple such an integral part of community life.

[Jennifer5]

This statement and U-dog's poetic definition of marriage shows marriage as the dynamic state it is. Marriage is essentially a formal relationship (contractual and/or covenental) between two people.

Marriage dies when it becomes static, existing in an unchanging state. To me, the phrase "institution of marriage" connotes such a state. The last thing I want to do is live in an institution. Love itself is a dynamic life force. It is ever-changing, just as the people who love and are loved.

Marriage is the cultural and legal manifestation of the relationship between two people. It is society's way of sanctioning and promoting that relationship. It is, as Daniel says, the vehicle that carries two people's love through the labyrinth of life, culture and law. That's why I think that equality will only come when we all have marriage. Do you think straight folks would settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships?

Of course not, however.... I do wish there was a way to level things out, I wish that for at least a little while, heterosexuals could feel the pain of not being aloud to marry. I believe that if we could do that, we would quickly end up with equal marriage rights.

[Jennifer5]

I like what U dog says; it's very much like that.

What hubby likes to say is that we're married because we not only love each other, but LIKE each other a lot (LOT!), and we want to be together. We want to be around each other. All. The. Time.
That's a good reason to get married. :):love::love::love:

Before we married, I always thought that the real covenant was the commitment shared and expressed between the two persons in private vows. I was astounded by how very different life became once we shared public, and publicly, socially, religiously, societally ACKNOWLEDGED vows in addition to our private commitment.

I considered us an inseparably linked, exclusively committed unit the day we got engaged. But once we were publicly and socially 'married,' oh my god, was there another level of experience! There is a whole 'nother thing out there: a level beyond even the resolve of the two persons involved. When your whole family, social group, community and government recognize that you are 'married,' it is a completely different experience - for me, I felt it as an emotional-kinesthetic alteration in the way I live in the world. Perhaps an analogy would be like it's the difference between stepping into a bathtub versus stepping from a beach into the ocean. It just feels really, really different and far more expansive. Or at least, it does to me.

Once I experienced that transformation of 'being married,' I understood that marriage equality for all couples is important Not Only philosophically and Not Only from a practical standpoint of requiring access to partner visitation in hospitals etc., but also from a psycho-social-emotional standpoint of true belonging in the greater community of life. There is something sacramental about even the civil marriage license. Perhaps that's what bugs those who think gay couples should not participate, though I shall never understand wanting to deny any couple such an integral part of community life.
That's beautiful Zerbie :love:

[u-dog]

Before we married, I always thought that the real covenant was the commitment shared and expressed between the two persons in private vows. I was astounded by how very different life became once we shared public, and publicly, socially, religiously, societally ACKNOWLEDGED vows in addition to our private commitment.

I considered us an inseparably linked, exclusively committed unit the day we got engaged. But once we were publicly and socially 'married,' oh my god, was there another level of experience! There is a whole 'nother thing out there: a level beyond even the resolve of the two persons involved. When your whole family, social group, community and government recognize that you are 'married,' it is a completely different experience - for me, I felt it as an emotional-kinesthetic alteration in the way I live in the world. Perhaps an analogy would be like it's the difference between stepping into a bathtub versus stepping from a beach into the ocean. It just feels really, really different and far more expansive. Or at least, it does to me.

Once I experienced that transformation of 'being married,' I understood that marriage equality for all couples is important Not Only philosophically and Not Only from a practical standpoint of requiring access to partner visitation in hospitals etc., but also from a psycho-social-emotional standpoint of true belonging in the greater community of life. There is something sacramental about even the civil marriage license. Perhaps that's what bugs those who think gay couples should not participate, though I shall never understand wanting to deny any couple such an integral part of community life.

Zerbie,

Polly and I had this same experience of suddenly knowing what we hadn't known we didn't know (ya know?) People sometimes say "we love each other ... we don't need a piece of paper" But its not about the piece of paper. Its about becoming a corporate entity together (in addition to your individual selves) that is recognized, honored, and celebrated by your family, your church, your community, the IRS. This is hard to get my mind around enough to articulate but ... its like "marriage" is Love fully planted in context. Its like marriage is about your relationship to each other ... but ALSO about the relationship of your relationship to all of your other relationships. (I should go back to bed :eek:)

All of which is why MARRIAGE RIGHTS ARE SO IMPORTANT ESSENTIAL TO FULL EQUALITY.

[Zerbie]

Zerbie,

Polly and I had this same experience of suddenly knowing what we hadn't known we didn't know (ya know?) People sometimes say "we love each other ... we don't need a piece of paper" But its not about the piece of paper. Its about becoming a corporate entity together (in addition to your individual selves) that is recognized, honored, and celebrated by your family, your church, your community, the IRS. This is hard to get my mind around enough to articulate but ... its like "marriage" is Love fully planted in context. Its like marriage is about your relationship to each other ... but ALSO about the relationship of your relationship to all of your other relationships. (I should go back to bed :eek:)

All of which is why MARRIAGE RIGHTS ARE SO IMPORTANT ESSENTIAL TO FULL EQUALITY.

Nah, that makes perfect sense and is well-said.
It IS about the relationship of the couples' relationship to the rest of humanity.

I have often said that it is the refusal to recognize gay relationships that is both symptomatic and enforcing of heterocentrist psycho-social abuse against gay individuals (coupled or not.) To share integrally in society is denied them. And I still wonder when the world, generally, is going to 'get it' that as long as - and to the extent that - it denies gay people, it is losing much that those people have to contribute. That it's to the benefit of everyone when we embrace the gifts and skills of those we are rejecting (the military firing Arabic translators being one prominent example of such loss).
Now I'm the one babbling. :p

[Daniel]

THIS is marriage.

4 couples - 3 bi-racial and one gay- talk about love and money and getting through hard times.

Gay kiss alert!

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/02/14/nyregion/1194837823442/love-and-money.html?hp

[rainbow7]

This statement and U-dog's poetic definition of marriage shows marriage as the dynamic state it is. Marriage is essentially a formal relationship (contractual and/or covenental) between two people.

Marriage dies when it becomes static, existing in an unchanging state.

Hello everyone, Polly the marriage and family therapist here....I haven't posted in so long that I almost forgot how to do it.....but I have been reading. U-dog and I were having dinner and I was pontificating and he said, "you should post what you just said on the What-is-Marriage thread, so here I am.

I'm jumping in after BenL said 'marriage dies when it becomes static' because I really resonate with that. In the past several weeks I've seen couples in crisis and more than a couple of people have complained, "this isn't the marriage I thought I was going to have!" To this I must say: exactly! That's just right. If you are fortunate you will only have one partner, but with that partner you WILL have many marriages. The dynamic, alive, healthy and satisfying marriage is one that is being repeatedly renegotiated as each partner grows and changes.

Couples tell me: "we have too much conflict in our relationship." But conflict is a good and natural thing; it means that growth is trying to happen. When the seed sprouts and tries to break through the earth to find the sun, the earth resists it. The sprout has to push to break through the ground and come up. Growth is like that. Without conflict there is no growth, only dormancy.....no new life.

Partners are usually uncomfortable with conflict because they haven't learned how to work through it to enable growth. They have the same arguments over and over and nothing gets resolved. That sort of conflict would wear anyone out.

Embrace conflict; it means you are about to grow. And yes, when the growth spurt is over, you will have a new marriage, and that is exciting. Part of what makes people create their marriage anew is based on external variables, some of which are out of their control. Part is based on internal factors, some of which afford us some choices, and others of which do not. Being in control is mostly impossible and besides, I think it is grossly overrated.

So yeah, choose one partner, but expect to have more than one marriage with her or him. It really is a journey, and you can't know where it will lead. The journey itself is the point.

[Daniel]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/14/More_French_couples_choosing_civil_unions/UPI-28891234627779/


More French couples choosing civil unions
Published: Feb. 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM

PARIS, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- Authorities in France say a civil union designed a decade ago for gay couples has become increasingly popular with heterosexual couples.

Heterosexual men and women see the Civil Solidarity Pact as halfway between living together and marriage, The Washington Post (NYSE:WPO) reported Saturday.

The pact originally was understood as a way for homosexual couples to legalize their unions under French law, which prohibits them from marrying.

For every two marriages held now in France, one heterosexual couple chooses the solidarity pact, the Post reported, noting 92 percent of the 140,000 couples choosing to be united by the pact in 2008 were heterosexual.

The pact allows couples to file joint income tax returns, which can lower their annual tax bill significantly, and the unions can be dissolved without costly divorce procedures, said Irene Thery, a professor at France's Higher Institute of Social Sciences.

Interesting, no?

[Jennifer5]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/14/More_French_couples_choosing_civil_unions/UPI-28891234627779/



Interesting, no?
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing that.

[Rick336]

My big question is; with a civil union ceremony, do we still get to have a cake? I mean, isn't the cake really what we're fighting for?

Rick

[Daniel]

My big question is; with a civil union ceremony, do we still get to have a cake? I mean, isn't the cake really what we're fighting for?


No cake for civil unions!

Forget about it! Don't even go there. Cake is only for marriage.

Didn't you read the Gay 101 Handbook? :rolleyes:

[u-dog]

I believe the most that you are allowed for a civil union ceremony is cupcakes.

[BruceChris]

And Zerbie, you're pretty good, too.

And no, I do NOT want to be celebrated by the IRS. If they'll just quietly let me file jointly, I will promise to leave them alone.

All of the commitment ceremonies at MY church have a big cake. I think Obama is right, this is a states rights thing.

Jen, I wish you a fine wedding someday, to the man or woman of your choice.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Jennifer5]

I'll quote his original message here.
COMMITMENT - A SUPPORT SYSTEM


September of 1999 John and I celebrated our 37th anniversary. We have friends, both gay and straight, that ask for our secret. The answer is, "There Ain’t no secret!" literally, that is exactly what we mean. No secrets! When John and I started out there were no religious support groups for gays, (there were only two social groups in those days,) there were no "gay weddings" or public ceremonies. We had a few friends that wished us, "all the best" then told us how their togetherness had fallen apart. We listened and we learned.

We felt that the quickest route to separation was with possessiveness. The romantic, but trite, "I'm his-He's mine" was a sure fire death knell. Kahil Gibran said, "let there be spaces in your togetherness." I do not own John nor does he own me, we allow for the need and the ability for separate interests. There are things we do that do not include the other, however it is important to realize that we do not exclude, and there is always the ability to include. Anna Lindberg in, "Gift from the Sea" speaks of two in a dance, not clinging together but moving freely in complementary harmony. Jealous possessiveness, contrary to our culture's popular notion, has no reasonable place in a marriage (or any) relationship.

The first year we shared our life together one of John's goals was improved communication, to his workers, to himself and to me. I became of the same mind and that brings the next big point. TALK! Other couples that we knew were going to break-up and without exception the communication was non-existent. They not only did not talk to each other, sometimes they did not know how. John and I took a class in semantics at a local college and while that may not be for every one it gave us base to build on. Now after more than 30 years we sometimes communicate with out speaking, but that only comes with time. It helps in the relationship to communicate needs; the way you need to be supported. To make a commitment to specific support to achieve a goal for the other is even more rewarding.

Any specific relationship should be a mutual support system. Most of the time we are in step and when the "different drummer" shows up we can talk about the rhythm we hear. We both have the ability and the desire to support each other yet be self supportive and appreciate our own self worth. This is important so let me repeat it, a relationship should be a mutual support system. Relationships among friends, a marriage, a family, a commune, a society, a club, a congregation, should be a relationship which, regardless of whatever else it may be, provides mutual support. This support may take many various forms and for many varying purposes. In a marriage or similar relationship, the mutual support can be a power that is so valuable and helpful that it becomes the "glue" that holds two together in a lasting and fulfilling way. Support may be for security, protection, intellectual stimulation and growth, for emotional reinforcement (love and caring), for challenging and encouraging of the potentials, for listening and unloading of distresses, for the sharing of experiences, both disturbing and joyous. These arrangements of support do not have to be (in fact, rarely are) confined to only the two, as in a marriage, but can include others that will compliment the relationship.


So the Secret? Let's call them guidelines:

Be open - never hide something from the other but temper your honesty with compassion and awareness.

Be free - with each other, with yourself.

Allow independence - "Spaces in your togetherness

Require "Faithfulness" of yourself; not of the other.

Help your mate: not to be like yourself, but to become the best of their own potential.

Accept and allow changes in the nature of the relationship; in the "levels of communication"

Never take an argument into the bed room. If you must stay up all night to resolve an issue then do so. If an understanding can not be reached or even if you agree to disagree, the bedroom is sacred territory and must not be used in conflict.

Finally, rather than seeking your own reflection in the other, seek goals to work toward together. (Not "you and me against the world" but standing together, hand in hand, reaching out to life.) We have had more than 30 years of the usual ups and downs but we have a commitment to each other, so why not try for 50!

We would give our love and blessings to you all.

_John & Doc
1999

A little follow-up:
In January of 2005 John passed away after a combination of heart problems, Parkinson’s and dementia. He went peacefully and I was with him when he “went home.” Ashes were scattered in the woods he loved. September of 2004 was 42 years of togetherness.