lol...romantic industrial complex may be the best term to come out of this site ever. that's awesome.

But rumor has it that due to all the homophobic dialogue around gay marriage there has been an upsurge of hetero-marriage (something I believe is an extension of homophobia) among young straights.

I've never met anyone who ever said that he or she wouldn't get married because gays can get married too. I'm attached to someone who won't get married because it feels like endorsing persecution.

I am interested in hearing from folks that actively work against this brainwashed bullshit. What strategies do you use to date while working against the romantic industrial complex (if you will. . . )? How do you get around the inevitable where is this going aaahhhh MARRIAGE, issue?

Easy. I got divorced, date a man who's also divorced, and we're both so disenchanted on the whole concept of marriage, that the only time we talk about it, is to say how neither of us will do it again.
I realise this sounds a bit glib, but it's 100% genuine. It doesn't mean our relationship is shallow, but we know how much the dissolution of a marraige can sting, first hand, and we're just not willing to put our fingers back into that fire!

More personal than political of course...

Panic: Is it just the dissolution of the marriage, or the dissolution of the relationship, that caused the sting? How did the marriage excerbate it? I've never been married, so I am curious. I've heard quite a few people become completely disenchanted with marriage after a divorce.

I'll admit that I want to get married because I think it's a positive thing, not just for me but for any future children; however, I do believe that it should be a personal choice and not yet another political weapon.

The question posed in the title of the post reminds me of an old joke about the rationality of marriage:

An economist, artist and scientist are discussing the relative merits of marriage vs. extra-marital relationships. The economist indicates that with the economies of scale that occur by living together and the stability produced by the marriage contract, marriage is the rational thing to do and hence it's better. The artist dismisses marriage as a stiffling bourgeoise institution and says it's better to simply have a string of relationships outside of marriage.

Then the scientist pipes up: "you're both kind of right and kind of wrong. it's actually best to have both a spouse and a partner on the side -- you can tell your spouse you're going out to see your lover, and tell your lover you have to spend time with your spouse ... and then sneak off to the lab to get some work done"

I don't know which I find funnier -- that the scientist would rather spend time in the lab or that scientists would tell their spouses they're going to see their lovers as if it's no big whoop ...

L-boog:
There's just so much pressure when you're married, and it comes from everywhere. If I had just been living with him, no matter how long, I don't think the end would have been as traumatic. It's hard to explain, but once you've said those words, in front of whomever, it feels really awful to have to recant them. :\

Let me first say that, for the most part, I enjoyed reading, and thinking about the implications of your article. Yet, first you ask What is the general (or I should say, mainstream) attitude from young people on marriage?

You later contradict yourself by saying

instead of starting a battle about how your hetero-marriage worked for you, I am interested in hearing from folks that actively work against this brainwashed bullshit.

Imho, it seems that many younger couples, whether gay or straight, are looking at the institution of marriage with more caution and rationality. They are less afraid of being alone or regarded as a slut, than of being another statistic in America's 50% divorce rate.

While I don't regard marriage as sacred, strictly for hetero couples, or think it should be sanctioned, I don't necessarily think it's bullshit for people to want to take that step together. I'm not married, so my feelings on that could change, and I'm in no way defending marriage as an institution, but I also don't think we need to work against it either. That only elevates it further.

I think marriage is what you make it, but it in no way makes or defines you.

I guess it just got my gander up when you asked for opinions, but only wanted to solicit certain ones.

the two guys on npr's car talk call the wedding industry the "marito-industrial complex," i think. they should know -- i think they've had like five wives between 'em.

i think my most liberating deed with regard to marriage (and the expectation that a woman has to be certain things to catch a man) was trying to get myself a "wife." he cooked, he shopped, he did yoga... and within weeks i wanted to jump out of the window every time he talked about my astrological sign.

the best advice i have for resisting the marito-industrial complex's suggestion that we are bad if we are unmarried is remembering that it's better to be yourself, happy, and single than pretending, unhappy, and married.

I don't want to get married.

I am all for monogamy in my personal life, but I think that getting legally married is showing implicit approval for the second class citizen-hood of homosexuals and it reinforces heteronormativity. I think there should be no such thing as marriage. Or it should be vastly rewritten to be something entirely different from what it is.

What I envision as a good institution of marriage is legal recognition for families of all stripes. Gay couples, straight couples, grandparents raising grandchildren, groups of adults raising each other's kids, a couple siblings living together, friends living together as a family. All of these should be viewed as equally valid family configurations by the government.

What I envision as a good institution of marriage is legal recognition for families of all stripes.

Now that is something I could get behind...

I think that getting legally married is showing implicit approval for the second class citizen-hood of homosexuals and it reinforces heteronormativity.

That's pretty much the textbook definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would you refuse to use birth control because EC isn't available to 15-year-olds?

I wonder what else not getting married because there's no SSM could be applied to. For example, if you were white men in 1900, would you shun voting on the grounds that women and Southern blacks aren't allowed to vote? How about not having sex because gay sex is illegal, which it was in many US states until 2003?

I don't think I would call what I do to remain free of the romantic-industrial complex a strategy. I insist on things like not having to observe random holidays by going shopping; for example, a relationship that needs to be buttressed with cordiform candy every February 14th to survive is too weak for me to bother. A piece of paper saying I'm married is yet another superficial thing that should be irrelevant in a healthy relationship.

I'm a 50-year-old woman, never married, never really wanted to get married. My strategy for dealing with the "where is this going marriage issue" was simply never to bring up marriage. None of the men I dated ever mentioned marriage themselves, and I never wanted to bring it up, so it simply never came up.

Since I never brought it up myself, I have to go by what some of my friends and younger cousins have told me, which is that men very seldom bring up the subject of getting married. It is very often the women who want the man to make that commitment, bring up the subject, and pursue it until they either get married or break up. So if you don't want to get married, or deal with the whole issue, OK, fine. Don't. Worked for me, anyway, for what it's worth. (in fact, I'm sure some of my relationships lasted LONGER than they would have because I did not put pressure on the men to marry me.)

The only reason I can think of for getting married is the big pile of legal benefits that you can get from them. In particular, the benefit that you can get in to see your partner when they're in hospital. That was a large part of the reason why SWITCTBN and I eventually got married; we'd been together long enough (eight years) so that we'd count as common-law married if that existed anywhere in the USA, but had already been tripped up by the "no marriage certificate == no visiting without verbal permission, and we're too busy to send an orderly back to ask" rules that too damn many hospitals have.

I must say I've never heard of this rumor about marriage as a way of flaunting your legal status over gay couples. People get married for some pretty stupid reasons, so it doesn't sound surprising, but I'd like to compare marriage rates in Canada vs. the US and Massachusetts vs. the rest of the US before following the argument to that conclusion.

On IndieBride it's referred to as the "Wedding-Industrial Complex," but perhaps that's just to refer to the frivlous floofy crap shoved down the throats of brides-to-be.

I'm young (25). I'm straight, and, from the outside, boringly heteronormative (ie. yes, I'm marrying a man and we intend to have children, but no, I would never argue that to do so is compulsory/necessary/naturally right and good for everyone). I'm getting married in 5 months. But I live in Europe (in Ireland, though I was born and raised in the US), where the right for all citizens to form a civil partnership with their significant other, be they of the opposite or same sex, is becoming law one country at a time. So far, it's legal in the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, and Brussels, and there's a major case coming up before the Irish Supreme Court in October that could very quickly change the law here, since the Irish state's inability to recognize their union is actually a violation of the Good Friday agreement.

My partner was also born and raised in the US but we both ended up emigrating to Ireland at about the same time as I did for similar reasons (we met here). I'm not sure how our views on marriage would be if we had stayed in the USA. I do know that marriage never even entered my mind until I met this man, in part because there wasn't a single relationship, let alone a marriage, that I grew up around that I would want to emulate. I have, since emigrating, found a few relationships/marriages from which I draw lessons and hope. I think this has quite a lot to do with the messages about marriage we recieve growing up in the us: cheap pop culture tells us that in marriage women become baby-obsessed shrews and men become lazy malcontents always looking for escape; hardline conservatives of any religion say it's the end-all, be-all to which all true womanly women must aspire; it's used as a political football to deny equal rights for everyone. And yet coupled with the message that marriage is the true and total consummation of one's earthly existence is a relentless, pernicious message that one should always be looking for a bigger, better deal: better toothpaste for whiter teeth, better job for more money, better body for more sex appeal, better partner. Surely, consumerism tells us, you deserve only the very best. It undermines what you actually have, else it could not exist. But this is a Marxist rant for another day.

Granted, Ireland was hardly a hotbed of progressive marital ideas, what with the archaic nature of the Catholic church here, as well has legislation that only legalized divorce in the early '90s but prior to very recently, there wasn't the same brand of American consumerism undermining everyone's personal choices. (Not to romanticise Ye Olde Ireland here; just saying that the Celtic Tiger boom brought in a lot of new money and wasteful excess.) So perhaps a change in cultural scene provided me with a chance to see the idea afresh, and this is what I have discovered:

I believe that a marriage is a creative act, and I do believe our entering into it is done so on our own terms. Actually, long have I wished for a completely different set of terminology: "marriage" does call up all its attendant personal and cultural baggage, and I don't particuarly enjoy "husband" and "wife" and all the patriarchal crap and assumptions packed into them.

Truth be told, a lot of why we're getting married--and I should explain here that we're actually getting a civil partnership in Belfast rather than marriage, with its strong religious flavor, in the Irish state--is for the legal reasons. We don't need a legal binding to keep us together, but the nature of the work we do means it makes more sense to be legally recognized as spouses and next of kin. But spiritually, ontologically, whatever, I've already made the commitment to this relationship as my one and only, and were it not for the specific legal advantages, I'm not sure I'd feel the same need to do something official. But since we're doing the official thing, we're having a party too. I don't necessarily think it's wrong to avail of the ability to protect and care for each other that way when my best gay friend and his partner can't. But perhaps I am only at ease with that idea because I think it'll happen for them so soon. I do think, however, that the misfortunes of others in the world aren't alleviated or solved by causing yourself to have similar misfortunes. There are better uses of your advantageous position than undermining your own ability to choose.

I have to second apophenia and orc. The sole reason my fiance and I got engaged/are getting married is because I will control his medical care should he become incapacitated. We only decided this after he had surgery to remove a brain tumor. ICU would only allow 2 visitors at the time and his brother and mother went in first--without even asking me if I wanted to go. Mind you, we had been together for five years at this point. They were well-meaning, but didn't listen to what HE wanted. So that's when we figured we had to get hitched. After seeing the disasters my mother and aunt went through TWICE, I never planned on it. While I do respect those who won't get married because gays can't, I'm using my situation as the perfect example of why gays should be allowed to marry. It's another way for me to support my gay friend s in their fight.

Frau Direktor, well said: much more concisely than I did. The writing becomes flowery in the small hours.

I was always pretty cynical about marriage, but I did eventually get married. Lots of legal and financial reasons for doing it. We didn't have a traditional wedding or anything - we just went to a court house and did it there. I made it very clear that I wasn't interested in an engagement ring from the very beginning. Kept my name and don't expect or want jewelry, etc. for anniversaries. And we both support gay marriage.

i'm going to have to read the rest of this on the train, but i've got one thing to say off the first paragraph...

None of my close friends are getting married and we are all close to 30.

boo, please! i'm not one "of [your] close friends"? dang, and i'm telling chris and sumi as soon as y'all west coast punks roll out of bed...

on the real, it looks interesting, gonna read the rest on the train tomorrow.

heights and blessings

I raised my children to understand there are always options beyond that of the zeitgeist.

Both have remained in long-term relationships with their original/first sexual partner, but neither at this point (29 & 30), seems to be either considering or not considering marriage ie it doesn't appear to be an issue.

My daughter and her partner have recently had a baby, as have many of their friends (most are not married), and suffer no legal/financial distinction for not being married.

None of the same-sex couples that I know particularly crave marriage and are quite happy as they are ... none-the-less, they should still have that right if they so choose. But since our laws have been modified same-sex relationships do not suffer any legal/financial barriers either.

When I married some 32 years ago, I did so by choice, not because it was expected. I too, was raised to believe that one always has choices in this world. And contrary to one writer's experience, I found that men were more desirous of marriage than myself ie every man I dated wanted to marry me within a very short dating period.

There is nothing wrong with marriage or not ... it really should be up to the individuals concerned.

Being one of the married masses whom you don't want to hear from, I have to say that the anti-brain washing work continues whether you marry or not. (we are both scientists, by the way--in reference to the joke about scientists) The complexity of being from two different countries initiated our civil ceremony for the easy of living together in the same country; we intended on being together anyway, so what the heck. Both of us have struggled with trying to define a unique relationship having had only the main stream marriage model as children. Our parents seem a bit baffeled by the dynamics of our relationship at times (for example, he loves to cook and does so more than me, and he is following me to a new job in the U.S.) so I take that as a sign that we are doing something right!

Speaking to the presidents of the National Academies recently (all men, but that's another story), it was interesting to observe that they summarized their career paths in relation to the parellel paths of their wives (who, for the first time, also all have Ph.Ds). When you read their bios anywhere, there is no mention of their wives, usually. Ralph Cicerone (president of the NAS) told me that having a 'career girl' for a wife actually made things a lot easier for him because they could both relate to the professional struggles of the other. His wife Carroll told me how imprtant family was to both of them without even having to reiterate that one can have a great career and be able to build a life together as partners.

I do love the idea of hetero couples boycotting marriage out of respect for our homosexual brothers and sister though! I kind of missed the boat though.

Many of my friends are also reaching or have passed their 30's. The weddings have begun though, with engagements, plans for children, and such amongst them. I don't actively try to dissuade them tough, as their happiness is to important to me.

I remain as their bachelor friend though, the one who always sets a bad example for them. I get told that I am afraid of commitment by them, while my lovers only occasionally try to direct my attention there. My response usually tries to highlight all the possible forms of marriage (real and fictional, legal or not) to see what might be pertinent to our current and future relationship.

Outside of personal relationships though, I try to explore with people the ideas behind marriage, outside of religion. A legally binding contract between people, that is (usually) for individuals to combine resources to forge a life together. It gives them a sort of combined identity that then has certain rights. But no legal recourse is needed to show someone that you love them. Nor is it needed to have children, and raise them. However anyone that can benefit from the legal rights, and wants them, should get them.

I'm not an activist, nor am I confrontational about it. Doing so usually gets me loaded with "commitmentphobe," and they only see me as an odd entertainment, and write me off as an eccentric.

Tammy,

that's some really interesting stuff, there... and i wonder what your reflection (or anyone else's, for that matter) is on that the presidents of the Nat'l Academies conspicuously leave out mention of their wives in their bios....

also, i just want to make clear that Samhita never said that she "[doesn't] want to hear from... the married masses." she merely said that she doesn't want the thread to turn into an argument centered around validating some folks' hetero- marriages, which it doesn't seem like you're very interested in doing either. so... great!

also, this statement by koibull was intriguiging, for me, as a newlywed...

I think marriage is what you make it, but it in no way makes or defines you.

however, at almost every turn, we met confusion and resistance from family and friends with whom we talked about our plans.

one big row we had with family was around the concept of being "given away" by another family member...

given that weddings are a ritual for marriage and rituals carry a weight both within themselves and without, as a small world which is then reflected in the larger world, i can see pretty clearly how the institution of marriage - and weddings - is one which exerts pressure to direct your relationship in a particular direction...

even with all of the work we've done to distinguish our relationship, there are plenty of expectations and assumptions which creep into even the most dedicated relationships... and the pressure exerted by community can not be understated...

nice ramble... i'll think before i write next time.

HEIGHTS!

I think that getting legally married is showing implicit approval for the second class citizen-hood of homosexuals and it reinforces heteronormativity.

That's pretty much the textbook definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

*****

I can see both sides. Which is why I've considered getting a "civil union" as opposed to getting "married" next time. Assuming there is a next time.

I had heard (though I haven't done the research) that in some European countries, getting married at the church and getting married at the courthouse were two separate things, and that if you wanted both, you had to have two ceremonies. It seems to me that this is a good solution to the gay marriage issue, since the primary objection in this country is with the word "marriage." It implies something about a church, which people take to mean that the government can tell churches what to do. (And we wouldn't want that. MUCH better to have churches telling the government what to do!)

Re: why divorce stings more than just breaking up; I hated getting the paperwork. I was SO glad that I wasn't stuck with him anymore, but seeing the legalese just made it objective and impersonal somehow. And every time I thought I was making some progress with myself, something else would come in the mail, and I'd be a wreck again. [shrug]

Coincidentally: http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/2006/08/24/

I think that there are a lot of issues that inform our perceptions and feelings of marraige that are not so obvious.

First, is the idea that marragie is an institution anyway. With divorce rates skyrocketing, one could argue that the credibility of marraige as an institution is faltering. I'll be curious to see what happens in 20 years with marraige.

Personally, my partner and I (we've been in a heterosexual relationship for over 3 years now) plan on getting married. I think this was more informed by how we felt about celebrating our union with our families than anything.

This decision was an easy one for me once I met my partner, and what has made it easier is the fact that he is a feminist too, and has taken on the work of creating a modern, equal relationship as well. I know in previous relationships I've felt as though I was the only person working towards equality, and I think we all know that doesn't work. Male feminists who really get feminism kick ass.

As feminists, we've had many discussions about the ceremony, exchange of names, titles, and what marraige means to us so that it is not an exploitative position for either of us. A hot-button issue for us is the actual titles given to each partner in the marraige, and what history comes along with that.

I agree that history of experience with marraige will tint a lot of your views of it, and I think we're lucky that we both came from families where the marraige was an equal partnership. That example has definitely helped me to see past some of the stereotypes about married life.

However, I think another major issue in related to feminism and marraige is the fact that it is inherantly difficult for a woman to succeed in her career and have a family. Please don't misinterpret this as my saying that it's not possible, because I think it is. But I believe it's fair to say that as the work world and accepted family roles stand, it makes that goal very difficult for women, and oftentimes forces them to make a choice between familiy and work. I know many young feminist women who want to do well in their career and feel as though marraige and family would hamper them from doing so because of this weight. I think that's what needs to change.

Overall, I believe anyone should be able to formalize (or not) their relationship with their partner in any way they want. For my partner and I, this means getting married, but I respect anyone's decision to do differently.

i don't really know what to say... i am an avid reader of Feministing.com, an outspoken feminist activist, but i am married. to a man. does that make me less of a feminist? i don't understand why people fear marriage so much. my parents got divorced. i made sure that i found a loving, caring man that treated me as an equal. i guess i'm a sell-out and a homophobe. whatever.

Yes, Hysterical Feminazi said what I wish I could have said more clearly.

I think it's completely possible to have an equal and healthy marraige (be you heterosexual or homosexual) if that's what you choose. And if that's not what you choose, then that's just dandy. I don't think anyone here would bite anyone's head off for wanting or not wanting to be married, whatever their reasons.

I also think that this conversation helps me to breathe easier; at least it's not a complete social abnormality to choose not to be married (or, for marraige to be a requirement for economic stability).

So yeah.

I don't think Hyesterical Feminazi should feel like people on the sight think women who marry are less feminist somehow. I think it is great that you found a man that treats you as an equal and that even after witnessing a parent's divorce, you still had faith enough in your partner to get married. That gives me inspiration.

Well I think Samhita’s tone might have made feminazi feel that you are somehow less of a feminist if you are married: “instead of starting a battle about how your hetero-marriage worked for you, I am interested in hearing from folks that actively work against this brainwashed bullshit�

i don't want to continue putting words in samhita's mouth, but, as someone who knows her pretty well (despite her "close friends" comment above... punk!), i want to put my spin on that li'l sentence.

i don't think she meant so much to imply that "you are somehow less of a feminist if you are married" and i think attributing "tone" to electronic media is a, um, slippery slope.

i believe she meant to direct the discussion away from arguing about who is "more" or "less" of a feminist and toward how people can work against all of the meanings wrapped up in hetero marriages by our larger society...

and that goes just as well for married people who are forging new, more equitable and powerful understandings of what marriage is as much as it goes for anyone else.

unfortunately, her comment seems to have achieved the opposite of its intention as, now, everyone is thinking it's a value judgement on married people... which i really don't think it is...

okay. done putting words in sami's mouth...

I've been married and divorced and I'm planning on marrying again. I look at it this way: if you are looking for a partner,someone to whom you can commit, through all of it and even to death, as the vow says, you are a person who wants to be in the special spiritual union that is marriage. It is very demanding and when it works, very fulfilling. There is no leaving it at the end of the day, so you must be with someone who respects and enjoys you, so that at the end of your days, it was worth spending your lives together.

This is a tremendous leap. It is different from "living with" someone b/c then you live with an understanding that you are only there as long as you want. It is as if you are saying "I will never die, I won't get older, life will stay as it is forever." But life is precious and finite. There are stages of it to move through. Also it's saying "there is always someone better." When you are married, leaving is harder: it's a death.

In getting married, you commit not only to one another but to a whole arc or pathway that embraces life and joins you will all the other people in the world who have gone before you. It's the same way with having a child. You become part of a whole and with the right person, you are increased, not diminished by it. The key is finding the right partner. Whether you are gay or straight is not really the issue, the issue is whether or not you have the disposition to have a life partner and it takes having a bit of the poet in you. The rest is just politics and making your life decisions around politics is risky b/c it might alienate you from what you really want. The only way to know what you really want is to be honest with yourself, to think but also to feel.

Coming to think of it, it's legitimate to talk about the morality of being married while gays are denied their rights... in a nutshell, it's akin to patronizing a white-only business; however, since marriage confers many important rights, it may be necessary in a way, like some people have no choice but to shop at Wal-Mart.

In theory, isn't marriage supposed to be about love?

Love isn't rational. It is all about emotion.

In getting married, you commit not only to one another but to a whole arc or pathway that embraces life and joins you will all the other people in the world who have gone before you.

Yes, but do you have to have a legal marriage to commit to each other? It is not the paper that makes you committed. The government doesn't have the power to declare you committed to a partner til death do you part. Only you and your partner have that power. And you can have beautiful ceremonies and swear your undying fidelity in front of family, friends, neighbors, and God without the government giving you a seal of approval.

When it comes down to it, the only real point of getting married is the legal benefits you get. Which brings me to this:

That's pretty much the textbook definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would you refuse to use birth control because EC isn't available to 15-year-olds?

I feel uncomfortable taking advantage of unearned privilege. Being straight and monogamous doesn't make me more deserving of legal benefits than anybody else. However, the comparison to using EC doesn't hold. I don't need to be married. My health doesn't depend on it. My life and my livelihood doesn't depend on it. However, getting pregnant right now would really fuck with my health, life, and livelihood. So I'll take EC and not feel bad about it. And if my teenage sister needed EC, I'd happily go buy it for her. Maybe if I could go to the courthouse and get a marriage license and the attendant legal benefits for a gay couple or any other non-straight-couple-based family unit the way I can go to the pharmacy and get Plan B for my sister, I'd feel a little better about participating in the institution of marriage.

But as it stands now, I'll get married the day my life and livelihood or the life and livelihood of my partner depends on it.

In theory, isn't marriage supposed to be about love?

Love isn't rational. It is all about emotion.

Love is an emotion and isn't rational. Marriage is a contract and an institution. You shouldn't confuse the two. One happens without the other every second.

So marriage is the application of a rational contract/institution (not trying to provoke anyone here) to an irrational emotion. That can be a tough one.

I wasn't confusing the two earlier. I agree love and marriage happen all the time without the other (my mother was miserable for years before she left my father). I was overly simple in my statement earlier. Marriage, for everything else it is, is supposed to be a contract and institution of love and commitment. That in and of itself cannot always be rational, which at a basic level was a question Samhita asked.

I personally believe marriage is what you make of it. Some want a partnership, others was to dominate/be dominated. Still others want something else. Do what you (and your partnet) want, and not what everyone thinks you should do. My mother used to hope for a wife and kids for me. Now she just hopes I get married and she gets invited. I hope I meet someone I want to make that commitment to, to make me happy and not anyone else (except my wife, of course). And if I do get married sometime, I'll consider inviting mom.

Samhita,

I believe that unless you change your attitude about marriage that, yes, you are doomed to life of sex toys, cheating, and one night stands.

You're not the only one, though. The destruction of marriage as a social cornerstone is a bigger problem than ever because of people like you who don't like accept that there are imperative "right" and "wrong" in this existence. Even though 60-70 % of black children in this country are now born out of wedlock, in your eyes, it's better to dissolve the institution of Marriage and teamwork and building a future together and love and respect and the whole Idea of changing the future for the better, than to have a person with hurt feelings because they're not attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

You are fighting for an equality or justice that doesn't exist and never existed in the first place.

And it's petty. You should be fighting for the institution of marriage. Statistics show over and over again that children raised by a "man and woman" in the same household are better people by any stick you care to measure with. Crime, drugs, teen pregnancy, income earning potential, grades, education, etc, etc,

If you truly cared about the future, you would not blind yourself to the common traits of successful families just because it disagrees with your ideology.

You ever hear the saying that "Life isn't fair."?

But like you said, you're only 28 so maybe you will eventually see the bigger picture.

Samhita, as a lesbian and a transwoman, I appreciate your willingness to stand in solidarity with queer people on the issue of marriage. Your decision to forgo marriage shows a willingness to make personal sacrifices in bringing justice to those who are excluded. Thank you.

As for the moralizing blowhards (i.e. tfreridge) who take issue with your decision—ignore them. Whenever one decides to walk upon a path that strays from majoritarian thinking, there will always be someone decrying one’s decision as being ruinous to both the world and oneself.

Do what you feel is right in your heart.

I too am married, but got married for much the same reason that Samhita doesn't want to -- because of a concern about equal rights. My husband is African American and I am white -- not even 40 years ago, we wouldn't have been able to get married (see www.lovingday.org). So for political reasons it made sense, but also for social reasons -- we felt like our families weren't going to really acknowledge and accept our relationship until it was formalized.

I was a very pissed off bride though. Instead of wedding magazines, I read a book (All Dressed in White) that gave the social history of weddings. We eloped so we could avoid the wedding bullshit. Then we had a reception, which I had to fight tooth and nail not to be too ridiculously "wedding like". It was a compromise (with my mother in law). But here's the wierd thing -- I actually felt more married after the reception then when I got married. I think there are two parts to marriage -- yes there's the commitment we make to each other, but also there's the commitment and support to/from the families and friends.

And on a day to day basis, my husband and I fight the "wife" and "husband" roles. I think the idea of marriage can be remade, transformed to fit your ideals, but its a lot of work ongoing. But I must say, its not without reward.

tfreridge,

not too happy to see you around again... but, since you don't seem too concerned with hurt feelings, i have no qualms saying so.

that said, considering that 50% of marriages end in divorce, i think a critical rethinking of marriage is more than in order and i applaud samhita in her conscious approach to this matter.

also, to head off your arguments that it is the queers and liberals who are debasing marriage, i'll suggest you look into where divorce is most "rampant" - it is certainly not massachussets, where i got married and where gays and lesbians can be wed as well.

further, dragging "black children" into your argument is pretty ridiculous. you don't give a shit about black children except for when they are convenient to your conservative white man's argument, so please lay off it.

further, considering how absolutely lacking the research is on gay, lesbian, bi, trans and polysexual families, i dare say your comment about comparing "black children" "born out of wedlock" is not only founded in white-man's burden supremacism, but in a comparison of apples and oranges.

the APA has a brief study here about gay parenting. allow for lgbt people to marry actually opens up the possibility of more two-parent families within which children may find a less struggle-filled life than in the crumbling framework of marriage and divorce as it now exists.

and maybe you, tfreridge, will someday open your mind to the idea that some people live by ideals rather than preaching them.

samhita never said a word against teamwork, building a future together, love or respect, but rather was speaking toward how to produce a future in which we re-engage with the core of what marriage can be, free of the commodified and heterosexist baggage that our current ideas of marriage carries with it.

i mean, how about forging a new breed of life-long love-based commitment with no ties to a process that once and still does involve the word "dowry"?

samhita's not, and hasn't, advocated raising children in single-parent houses because she hates marriages... and, really, when someone's being honest and self-critical, i think it's pretty uncalled-for to get all preachy about it...

ugh. disgusting.

...

and, nmshuffle, i'm feeling you - in more ways than one - though my partner and i do like calling each other "wife" and "husband" because it's cute... ugh, i'm such a snag...

gotta check out that book, though, for sure...

but, yeah, the ritual space of declaring a commitment of love before your closest community of people (family, friends...) is really awesome... and there was another thing that hit me really hard during our wedding - just how many amazing and loving people we've got in our life... and how fulljoyed we are to share our life together with all these lovely people.

Samhita, I have to wonder about where inside you this article came from. On one hand, you make a very valid point in wanting to show solidarity with homosexual couples who are not legally allowed to marry. But then you go on to essentially talk about what a shithole it is... so I have to wonder, if that's the way you feel, why you'd "wish" marriage on anyone. :o) I add a smiley, because I'm not trying to express vehemence.

I think you may be confusing the legal perks of "marriage" with the socially constructed and awful institution of "marriage", which tfreridge so eloquently talks about (and who WOULDN'T want to steer clear of that bullshit?), and the relationship that can create a marriage when two people want to love and support one another for the rest of their lives, which I won't harp on because puckalish and nmshuffle talked about it so well.

The *timing* of my marriage was mostly legal-oriented; we found out that UCLA offers comparatively cheap and nice housing to married/civilly-joined students. We still would have gotten married anyway, just later. I think part of that is a social construct -- we decided we wanted to be together for the rest of our lives, so that translated into marriage. But I don't think we're worse off for that; we *felt* married, committed long before we even got engaged, and what the "ceremony" is about for us is the "ritual space of declaring a commitment of lvoe before our closest community of people" (puckalish, I think you worded that beautifully). That ceremony is happening in just over a month from now, and I can't wait.

Not sure what the point is. I suppose it's that, like so many other things, if you decide to marry for *your* reasons, it can be a beautiful thing. By the same token, a relationship can be long lasting and beautiful without the label of marriage... so... yeah. Stay within your comfort zone is what I mean, I suppose. And I second the wish that one could obtain all the legal perks of marriage without feeling like they're supporting tfreridge in beating decent people over the heat with a bigoted and ignorant point of view.

i've been lurking around here a while (friend of andrea's), but i kind of feel obligated to post on this one (being youngish and married and feminist). hopefully i wont reiterate what andrea already said, since i very much agree with what she (and several others above) said about getting married for one's own reasons.

part of me really did want to make my marriage a big statement. i wasnt going to go so far as go NOT get married (i like the idea of being able to make medical decisions for my husband, thanks), but i made it clear that i think of marriage as two separate things: legal and personal. the whole thing, from start to finish, was full of our choices. sometimes we went with tradition (almost never just for tradition's sake), sometimes we didnt (never just to be rebels).

we had a ceremony for the personal part of marriage. i wore a dress because it was pretty. it was off-white, even though i was (uh oh!) a virgin, because i liked the dress and not the idea of purity or any of that shit. i wore a veil because my mom made it, but i refused to put it over my face. both the groom and i were walked to the altar by both sets of parents and there was no "giving away" of anyone.

i'm overdoing the details. what i'm trying to say is that just because my action of having a ceremony and reception (good lord was that party fun, though!) happens to align with the "institution" of marriage, doesnt mean i've bought into the patriarchy, The Man, etc. it does bother me sometimes that people just assume that i'm the traditional wife (ha HA) simply because of the ring. but my marriage is just that: mine. as was my wedding. so its up to me to just not care whether i was being traditional enough or feminist enough.

moral of the story: choice is gud. and just to bring it home, marriage (the way i experience it) is great, and should never be denied to a couple because of their genders. if we could just remove the preconceptions about marriage, i think we'd all be better off.

I am interested in hearing from folks that actively work against this brainwashed bullshit. What strategies do you use to date while working against the romantic industrial complex?

Moral of the story: choice is gud.

Choice is what feminism is all about. It is exactly what Samhita wanted to discuss. The heterosexist romantic industrial complex puts too much pressure on women to marry or have children whereas men have more of a choice to not marry or have children. Women have protested the pressure to have children and many feel okay that they don't have children. Women should similarly feel okay about not getting married.

I haven't been sure whether or not to comment, because I wasn't positive whether Samhita wanted to get advice and support from others who had chosen not to marry for personal and political reasons (which I would completely respect, because sometimes you need to lay down some ground rules in order for a conversation to move forward), or also wanted to hear from those of us who wanted to get married while grappling with some of these issues.

I do want to get married, eventually. I didn't used to, and what changed my mind was attending my mother and stepfather's wedding ceremony. It was small, held in a local restaurant, but it was so moving, not only to avow love and commitment in front of friends and family, but also to hear words spoken that had the weight of tradition and ritual and ceremony behind them. The other reason I feel marriage as a ceremony and a ritual is important to me is because it is one of the only rituals and ceremonies truly open to those of us who are atheists. I wasn't bat mitzvahed or anything, and my kids won't be either. For me the opportunities for ritual and community recognition are graduation, and marriage, and that's about it.

That said, how do I deal with the discriminatory institution of marriage? Well, I'm bi, and if I want to marry a woman, I'm gonna be stuck not being able to do it, and that'll be how I deal with it. If I want to marry a man, I think for me it'll be partially like the way I eat a lot even though many people are starving to death: my going hungry or not getting married isn't actually going to help them. The only thing it will do is make me unhappy and/or leave me, my partner and children legally vulnerable. But, for the little it's worth, I would make sure that donations to GLAAD or the HRC were explicitly listed as gift options. That's not a lot, I know it's not, and I'd love to read other people's ideas (not that I'm going be getting married any time soon--have to meet the right person first.).

One thing that I've made sure during my marriage process (got legally married in April at a court house, having a spiritual/mooshy ceremony in October in my mother-in-law's living room) is to specifically exclude institutions that I *know* are discriminatory -- I refuse to get married in a church or participate in a ceremony officiated by someone who believes that my union is somehow more valid because it is heterosexual. With the court house, that was a bit tricky -- it's not like I can ask the justice of the peace what her views are on gay marriage, but I felt comfortable with it in light of San Francisco courts allowing gay couples to marry. CA is a pretty liberal place; and it could be me deluding myself, but I'm fairly certain that a lot of the courts here would allow gay couples to wed but don't have the balls of the San Francisco courts. *shrug*