The healing power of mawwage or Solving social ills, one free group-wedding at a time

"Mawwage.  Mawwage is what bwings us togewerr today.  Mawwage, that bwessed awwangement, that dweam within a dweam."

*************************************************************

The way some people talk about the power of marriage totally baffles me.  From Salon--I don't quite know what to make of this:

...300 African-American couples [are] hoping to be among the 10 who'll be chosen for an all-expenses-paid weddingpalooza on Sept. 29 -- an occasion that the competition's inventor, Brooklyn author and journalist Maryann Reid, has dubbed Marry Your Baby Daddy Day.

Reid, 29, says she conceived of the event -- to be sponsored by several local black-run wedding businesses -- as a community service of sorts. "I kept meeting women who said, 'I live with my baby daddy and we're not married but we've been engaged for five or 10 years …,'" she says. "There are so many couples who live together and love each other but for some reason just are not motivated to tie the knot, but when given an opportunity, they jump right at it." She sees the campaign as a way to draw attention to -- and perhaps decrease -- the number of black couples who call each other "baby daddy" and "baby mama" instead of "husband" and "wife."

Is it just me, or is this kind of a batshit idea?  Who cares what people call each other as long as they're in a committed relationship?  (Not that free weddings aren't nice.  Well... having a wedding with 9 other couples where you're only allowed to invite 10 guests isn't that nice, but I guess it's better than nothing if you're strapped for cash.) 

To her credit, Reid is concerned with the number of black women raising children on their own.  Ok.  Excellent.  But let's think about marriage for a second.  Mawwage.  That would be the "lifetime commitment" that half of all couples reneg upon at some point or another.  The foundation of our society blah blah blah.  Needs to be protected from the lesbians blah blah blah. 

Though "family values" purveyors would have you believe differently, a healthy committed relationship doesn't have to mean marriage and marriage certainly doesn't mean a healthy committed relationship.  I invite anyone who thinks differently to spend a christmas holiday with my family.  BYON. (Bring your own nog.  You'll need it.)  Marriage doesn't do anything.  Fostering committment between individuals is a complicated project.   Going through a silly ceremony can be nice but it's in no way essential to the commitment itself.  Why do these people need to get married if they're already in a long-term committed relationship? (as all of Reid's winning couples will be--one prospective couple has been together since he was 17 and she was 15--now they're both over 30.)

More importantly though--and this is my main point--while there may be cause to encourage family unity (in both black and white communities), I think that singling out committed black couples for criticism is not only a case of misplaced condemnation, but also an invitation for further criticism of certain minority behaviors...specifically, behaviors (like raising a family together but not getting married) that aren't at all harmful but that don't meld well with Whitey P. Republican's set of "values."  Am I off base here?

As for mawwage, I just want to get this off my chest: Marriage is a fabulously overhyped institution, whose allure is all-too-often rooted in fabulously overstated assertions about its power to foster domestic bliss/stability/happy families/committment/prosperity.  And it's kicked off with a fabulously overpriced event where you dress up in a princess costume and recite some archaic lines and then you dance and have champagne or something.  Oh and it only works for straight people.  Gay people can have the overpriced event but the relationship won't be recognized and they don't get the domestic bliss.  Cause they're sinners.

Humperdinck:Man and wife! Say man and wife!!

-Heather

Comments

[Musing Michael]

Are you sure the "Reverend" Moon isn't tied up in there somewhere? Sounds an awful lot like his type of gig.

Seriously, though, I think the best definition of "marriage" I've ever heard is that it's a "radical, permanent, public commitment." The ceremony is optional. As long as that commitment is there, it's a marriage--by whatever name it's called. Whether or not the anarcho-conservacons will agree to call it such is another kettle of rotten fish, but who cares what they think, anyway?

[gary]

I am of the opinion, one that is not equally shared in the community, that the term is not important.

Take for example the stuff going on in Connecticut today. They are having a highly successful run at the same protections as marriage, but under the terms of "civil union."

I think this is where the argument needs to go.

If everyone is so hung up on marriage, well then let's just drop the term.

As long as I am guaranteed the same 1049 FEDERAL protections as everyone else, you can call it whatever makes you happy. I don't care!

I just want to be secure in the knowledge that my parter, our kids, my estate, our home, and everything else that involves the legal, civil, and total government protection of our family is guaranteed.

I deeply resent that fact that I need to spend thousands annually to create this safety net. A civil privelege that straight couples get for $20 in the way of a marriage license.

So call it whatever you want, just protect me and my partner!

FYI -- State level protections (CT civil union or MA Marriage) is not enough. I want FEDERAL protections like everyone else! State stuff is protection-lite!

[Cheryl]

Gary has the right idea. The federal government needs to stop marrying people and let the churches do it. The federal government needs to get out of the business of conveying religious sacraments upon us. The federal government needs to drop the term marriage entirely and replace it with civil unions for everyone.

Let the churches convey the religious blessings of marriage on their own members. Strip away the church's illegitimate power to convey legal priveledges of civil contracts on heterosexuals. By putting churches in the role of conveying legal rights on people we are allowing theocracy to dictate the public agenda.

[Musing Michael]

Sorry, Cheryl, but that's exactly ass-backwards. We need the government to take the power of marriage away from the churches altogether. They can still have religious ceremonies if they wish, but they will no longer be sufficient to create a marriage in the eyes of the law. That will be exclusively the power of the government, exactly as they do it in Europe. You must have a civil ceremony, which is what gives you legal standing as a married couple. If you wish, you may then (and only then) have a church ceremony, but it's not what creates the marriage.

[Incertus]

I think that's the point Cheryl was trying to make--let's make marriage a purely religious term that has absolutely no governmental meaning, and make the tie that binds known as civil unions. And even though that's an eminently sensible compromise, the wingnuts will never go for it because it means you have to treat gays and lesbians as if they're, you know, human instead of scum.

[Musing Michael]

Incertus: That may have been Cheryl's point, but it isn't mine. I think we need to make marriage--or rather, turn it back into what it was up until 1215--an entirely civil notion. You're married when you have the civil contract drawn up and file it with the proper authorities. Whatever you do in addition to that (party, church wedding, breaking a glass, jumping a broomstick...) is fine and dandy and right and fitting. But it isn't "marriage." That's a term reserved for the state, and the state only. The wingnuts can still pretend that it's the religious ceremony that matters in the eyes of God (they're wrong about that, too, I suspect)--but if they want any of the gub'mint benefits that go along with the foofooraw, they'd better march their butts down to the courthouse and do the paperwork first.

[Incertus]

Ah--we're after the same goal, I guess, but with different terminology. You want to secularize the term marriage, while Cheryl and I want to religiousize (is that a word?) it and make civil union the secular (and binding) term.

From what I understand, in Ireland, the way you describe it is pretty much the way it happens. There's actually a moment in the church wedding where the bride and groom leave the church, meet with the local equivalent of a JP, sign the marriage license in a civil ceremony (and are officially married then), and then go back inside to finish the religious part of the service. There's no requirement for the church part either. I'd be great with that compromise as well--as long as same-sex couples get the same rights as hetero couples get, I'm all good with it, no matter the terminology.