This FAQ needed a whole post to itself

[liv]

What are the political implications of getting engaged to be married?

I would like to pretend that my intended marriage is just an arrangement between me and my fiancé, and has no effect on anyone else. I would like to, but in honesty I can't, because although we are by far the most affected, marriage is by its nature a public act. Getting married does send out messages to the world at large. The most prominent is that I love jack and intend to build a life with him; that's entirely true and I have no problem with it. But there are a whole load of other connotations I don't really agree with. People would have some justification in arguing that going along with getting married in spite of this could be doing actual harm. I've wrestled with my conscience on this, and I have concluded that the primary message about my commitment to jack outweighs all these potentially negative secondary messages. But it's only on balance, it's not an absolute conviction.

As a woman / as a feminist:
In the society I live in, marriage tends to be a somewhat awful transaction, where women are offered the opportunity of being princesses for a day, in exchange for giving up the rest of their lives to their husbands and children. It almost goes without saying that I think that's a terrible set-up, and I don't intend my marriage to be like that at all. But I can't just decide on my own that I'm going to have a relationship called a "marriage" which doesn't share many of the features most people associate with the concept of marriage.

The counter to that argument is that I'm hardly the first person to think of a marriage as a mutual egalitarian partnership, or to think of a wedding as a chance to spend time with people dear to me. My hope is that if more and more people treat marriage as the beginning of a future together, rather than the culmination of their life's ambition in a grand romantic gesture, the consensus definition of marriage will gradually shift. It's happening to a great extent already; I have plenty of married friends whose relationships look nothing like the romance novel / Hollywood / gossip magazine view of marriage. I hope I can make a (small) positive contribution by acting as a role model for some of the possibilities open to married women in the modern world, rather than a (small) negative contribution by appearing to support a rather sexist institution.

As a Queer person:
Many activists have argued, with some conviction, that it's wrong for opposite-sex couples to take advantage of a privilege not offered to same-sex couples. I do take this argument seriously, but in the end, I don't think anyone will particularly care if I "boycott" marriage until there is full marriage equality for people of all gender combinations. I would like to find some more meaningful activism that I can engage in, because I don't think refusing to get married is actually going to do anything to help people who experience discrimination and disadvantage due to being Queer. For a start, if I end up getting that stupid marriage bribe from the government, I'm going to spend it on activist, possibly even marriage-questioning, causes! If I have a visible, serious opposite-sex relationship, I get loads of privilege from that anyway, regardless of whether or not I call it marriage.

Being married will of course make everyone assume I'm straight even more than they already do. It will probably also make random strangers assume that I am planning to have children and that I'm planning to avoid any kind of intimate relationships with people other than my future husband. Then again, people make stupid assumptions about me (and others) all the time. I do feel a little bit as if I'm "selling out", but only a little bit, and I don't think I'm being rational in feeling like that.

As a Jewish person:
Perhaps surprisingly, my relationship with jack hasn't really changed my general views about mixed relationships / marriages. I still think there are some meaningful, serious downsides for a committed Jewish person in a romantic relationship with a non-Jewish partner. I have a great deal of sympathy for people who, when single, insist on dating only other Jews. At the same time, I believe as firmly as I ever did that communities punishing or outright excluding members who choose to marry non-Jews, let alone children of such couples, is absolutely unjust, and on a pragmatic level entirely counterproductive. The problem with intermarriage from the community perspective is that it somewhat increases the chance of people becoming alienated from Judaism and community life; deliberately alienating people makes this problem vastly worse and not a bit better!

The problem with intermarriage from the personal perspective is to do with having a partner who doesn't share an important aspect of your life. I've decided that in my case the slight downsides are worth the benefits of a relationship with jack (not a relationship with a hypothetical non-Jewish person in the abstract). Anyway, the point is that I'm not marrying him because I'm rejecting Judaism or anything like that. At the same time, I do expect that being married to someone who isn't Jewish is going to cause some amount of friction with the Jewish community at some point in my life.

In general, I am aware that marriage has a lot of baggage attached to it. I still want to get married, because I want to make a public commitment to be part of jack's life in the long term, and marriage seems like the closest fit to what we want, even if it's far from perfect. In some ways I'd prefer it if civil partnerships or something like the French PACS were available to opposite-sex couples. But I would be a total hypocrite to complain about that, given how many people are excluded from any kind of marriage altogether, and how many advantages I get from having access to a relationship model which is recognized pretty much everywhere in the world.

Comments

[delight]

Can I just ... point people to this post when they ask me about why as a bisexual Jewish feminist female who does not want children I am marrying a Presbyterian man? Because seriously you just ... wrote my thoughts (although my boyfriend is considering conversion, and not just because of me).

Seriously, I am enamored at your well-phrased way of putting things, and the fact that we seem to be completely on the same page. My parents have a lot of the same issues with the idea of marriage that I do (and I was raised by them with their views of marriage – they regret getting married, and often say so, although they don't regret being together) and it took him a while to convince me that I actually did want to get married despite my anti-marriage upbringing ... and even my parents are going along with it with as much happiness as possible for how marriage doesn't sit right with any of the three of us entirely.

tl';dr I SYMPATHIZE GOOD POST.

[liv]

Wow, thanks for this response, that's incredibly flattering and encouraging! Feeling that people understand you is one of the most satisfying things about blogging, so I really appreciate your letting me know that my post reflects your thoughts.

[ptc24]

The trouble with saying sensible things about this is my own personal feelings are kind of conflicted, that there's a somewhat selfish emotional response that prevents me from thinking clearly about the situation. The following should be taken as a mere statement of my ill-examined feelings, feelings that shame both my sense of ethics/morality/justice/fairness and my sense of rationality, rather than any sort of statement of an opinion or anything like that. This is certainly not a request! Nevertheless:

I can't get married, for nonpolitical reasons.[1] I often find myself getting upset when I see people getting ahead in their relationships. New couples are particularly upsetting. I have lost too many good housemates to relationships, to marriage. People pair up (or form polymers, or whatever) and it breaks up the sort of social situation that I thrive in. Yet I can't bring myself to say that what these people are doing is wrong. I have to control my feelings, I have to avoid giving in to envy, I have to keep my upset to myself, I have to try to be happy for people. I have to tell myself that people have a right to pursue their happiness... You can probably figure out the rest.

[1] This is not to say that there aren't some political factors affecting this, but realistically, I don't see that as the major part of the problem.

[ptc24]

I think, on reflection, I can put things a bit more succinctly:

I think it would be unreasonable of me to ask you not to get married. Therefore my first reaction (with all the disclaimers that that entails) to other people asking you not to get married is to feel that they are being unreasonable.

[liv]

I do have a great deal of sympathy for you, and I can quite understand how you would feel as much resentful as pleased when someone announces an engagement. One of the reasons I feel somewhat ambiguous about marriage is that it's seen as the ultimate stamp of success, and I don't think that's reasonable. It's largely a matter of luck whether you happen to meet someone who wants to form a long-term romantic pair, and meet them in circumstances where that outcome is possible for both of you. Apart from anything else there's a pretty narrow age-range where getting married is socially sanctioned and it's easy to be busy with something else during that narrow window, or just not have figured out who you want to be enough to form a permanent relationship.

I think some of the things you're complaining about apply to romantic relationships in general, not specifically to marriage, though. I mean, people preferring to live with a romantic partner rather than in a houseshare situation isn't really about marriage. I certainly don't plan to stop spending evenings at geek gatherings having rambling discussions, just because I'm married. Though it is true that I may end up dragging jack away from Cambridge, his moving here to live with me is something we discussed ages ago and isn't really connected to getting engaged.

[ptc24]

Roughly in reverse order; marriage, these days, is often more a symbolic recognition of what already exists - the relationship creates the marriage, rather than vice versa. Most of the issues are to do with romantic relationships, marriage as such versus, a marriage-grade relationship that hasn't been formalised, there isn't really a big issue as such.

In the first paragraph, something stung about a matter of luck. I think there are two separate issues here; one is the difference between situations where there are a lucky few, and situations where there are an unlucky few. Another is the difference between the case where the odds are against you in each individual case, but in the long run, it adds up to a good chance of success, versus a case where the odds are still slim in the long run, versus a third case where odds don't enter into it and what might otherwise be hoped for is completely impossible. All three are different in character; I try not to conflate cases 2 & 3, but when I see case 3 often getting sympathy and case 2 being routinely ignored (whether my perceptions are correct, any if so whether they generalise outside the rather odd social bubble I live in), then it can be hard for me to control my frustration at time.

It's pretty clear that there are factors that affect how likely it is you are to be in a position to get married, including but not limited to how much effort you are prepared to put in to the matter.

I suppose there's partly a generational thing; it seems that a smaller and smaller proportion of people get married as the years go by, however it still feels like marriage or marriage-grade LTRs (possibly ones ending in breakup or divorce) are the norm and not forming one is the exception.

rambling agreement

[redbird]

A lot of this, the queer and Jewish parts, makes a lot of sense.

As I think you know, cattitude and I got married, after a lot of years together, because I wanted him to be my next of kin. More precisely, because I wanted my father not to be. (My mother would have been fine, but there was an ocean between us, and my father was in the same city.) I did and do love him and want to be with him, but it was one of the thousand+ things that come automatically with marriage in the U.S. that convinced us.

In my case, I don't think this significantly increased other people's assumptions about monogamy or children: where I am, both of those seem to be assumed in any long-term relationship if the two people involved are living together. (Though, yes, I have had people on the net say that they are familiar with, even have had, open relationships, but don't understand why someone would get married if they weren't planning to be monogamous. *sigh*)

At the same time, unless I want to start covering my bag and coats with queer symbols (and why I don't is a topic for another month, when I have more time), I am going to be assumed to be straight whether I'm married or not, unless I'm with Adrian and doing something that makes it clear that she's my partner, not "just" a good friend. (If we're at a con or party together, it's clear; at the supermarket it may not be.)

It's not just that people will tend to assume, if I'm with someone male who doesn't look a generation older or younger, that that person is my husband/boyfriend. It's that the heterosexual assumptions are so pervasive that I can be sitting alone on a train, reading a Patrick O'Brian novel, and many people are assuming I'm het without thinking about it, because they assume everyone is.

[liv]

Thanks, redbird, I really appreciate this comment. Plus you're high up in my list of relationship role models, so your support really means a lot to me.

There are definitely a whole lot of advantages to marriage. There are some respects where it's not as bad in the UK as the US (for example, we don't have a formal next-of-kin system like that). I definitely have a nagging feeling that every time an opposite sex couple gets married purely for tax or immigration or other technical legal reasons, it's one more thorn in the flesh of people who can't marry their partners whether for romantic or practical reasons.

I definitely agree about people assuming you're straight and monogamous anyway, even the total strangers on the train who would have no idea whether you're married or not. And yeah, queer symbols everywhere is not at all an obvious choice. It's all complicated.

[403]

I trust that you'll use your powers of Invisible Queerness for good. ;)

As a feminist, I have to say that even a fairly "traditional"-looking marriage can be quite alright, or the most "liberated"-looking one extremely confining, depending on how well they meet the needs of the real people in it, and how well the structure is able to adapt to the ways that the participants' needs change over time. (Wow, that was a long sentence.) The people who would criticize your decision need to take that into account, or they're only going to succeed in replicating the Windows vs. Linux wars in marriage architecture.

Personally, I've gotten married and I do want at least one child (though not soon). And I know I'm going to have an uphill climb to build a life which both takes responsible care of that kid and allows me to do a reasonable number of the things that keep me sane. For me to not try, though, would be to concede that the problem is insoluble, when I'm convinced otherwise.

[liv]

I wasn't meaning to imply that I only approve of marriages where the couple exactly split 50:50 the money-earning labour, the household chores, the childcare responsibilities etc. What I'm calling a mutual egalitarian partnership is simply one where the partners negotiate what will most suit them as individuals, and if anything should be shared roughly equally it's the compromises. As opposed to a socially approved / expected marriage where the wife's desires and interests always come second to those of the husband and offspring. Or worse, there's never any conflict because the wife isn't supposed to have any desires of her own other than to serve her family.

Good luck with your life-building plan. I think (based on observing my friends) you're right that it's uphill but possible to bring up a child and do things that keep you sane. It's harder in the US than Europe, mind you, but still doable. My anecdotal impression is that it's a lot more possible with one child rather than two or more, which is sort of a shame, but many many mothers have told me that the "jump" from one to two is bigger than they expected.

[nanaya]

Oh hey, I've processed all these thoughts and more over time, and a few times already, since I'm technically on my 4th engagement and approaching my 2nd marriage. Each time I've thought about it, while my thoughts have mostly been consistent, things have of course shifted a bit. I also have VIEWS about the legal, philosophical and historical stuff which pertains to marriage, and how I often don't think those things are accurately represented in the wider culture we inhabit.

I don't think I can easily sum up in a comment, but if you'd like to talk about this properly some time soon, I'd be more than up for that.

I hope you found the April Winchell column helpful! You may also wish to try googling Wedding Industrial Complex, for more on this.

[liv]

Thank you, I did think that column was rather sweet, and also comforting in that it reassured me that we're Doin it Rite. I would love to have an in depth discussion with you about this stuff, but then I always enjoy talking to you about pretty much any stuff. I should try and conquer logistics enough to come and visit again soon!

[shreena]

Your link back to the mixed relationships post reminded me: have you decided against pursuing a professional Jewish leadership position (rabbi or not) or is it still something you're considering?

[liv]

Good question. I haven't entirely given up on the idea, but it's much less at the forefront of my mind now that my primary career is back on track again. I'm in a situation where I can believe I have a future as an academic, and in some ways I think I can make more of a contribution to the world by teaching students and increasing the sum of human knowledge about cancer than through religious leadership.

At Limmud I attended a meeting for "friends of Leo Baeck College" (that is the Reform and Liberal rabbinical training school), mainly by mistake because the description made it sound like more of an open event than it really was. But anyway, at that event I did feel real pangs of regret that, having got engaged about 18 hours previously, I was probably cutting off my chances of ever really being part of that whole rabbinical thing.

What it comes down to is that I have decided to make a commitment to Jack, and I don't see much benefit in not getting married just to make it easier for communities to turn a blind eye to the relationship if they feel uncomfortable about it. I'm not exactly going to do serious work with a community while hiding the fact that I have a non-Jewish partner, nor am I going to pretend that the relationship is just a casual hookup. So a consequence of making this commitment is that I am willing to fight for my right to be recognized as a serious, committed Jew who can be a candidate for leadership roles even if people have a problem with my relationship choices. And... most probably if I do end up training as a rabbi, I'll follow in the footsteps of my teacher R Michaels, who took early retirement in order to enter the rabbinate as a second career. Like him I am very much involved in the community in a secular capacity while also having a professional career that isn't community related at all. By the time I'm, say, 50, I'm reasonably optimistic that the community will have moved on from where it is today.

[hairyears]

I do not doubt that you and Jack will build your marriage the way you want it, rather than living in a confining construction of other peoples' expectations.

Every marriage that succeeds in this changes the institution of marriage and opens it up, little by little.

Meanwhile, I worry about religious communities that discourage 'marrying out' - at the very least, they should be glad that they are, in part, 'marrying in' a potential new joiner; it reveals a lack of confidence in the advantages of their beliefs their way of life that they disregard the possibility that someone who loves one of their members might like them, too. Also, some of the smaller religious communities in the United Kingdom really, *really* need the genes.

[liv]

I do largely agree with you that, treated right, mixed marriages can bring real benefits to the community. But I'm a little uncomfortable with talking about people "needing the genes"; it smacks of eugenics and it's also rather a rude way to talk about other people's communities.

But thank you for your encouraging words about marriage and expectations!

[owlfish]

I really enjoyed reading this. Thank you.

[daharyn]

I also enjoyed reading this. Or, well, found it illuminating in any case. I just feel like this sort of processing is something only the minority of couples engage in, and that worries me.

My views on marriage are really conflicted, and upon hearing of this one, I felt both deeply envious and super selfish--selfish enough that I went to so-and-so and said, "hey, you promised to be at [Event X], but you're highly likely to be invited to liv and jack's wedding, omg what if they are at the same time, please hold me while I freak out for a minute." (This bit of melodrama was easily resolved, as such things go, and has since passed in any case.) Because weddings are such a big deal where I come from that even though [Event X] is important to me and has been on everyone's mental calendars for a while now, I assumed your wedding would trump it. And part of me still thinks that even if the two events were going on simultaneously that yours ought to be considered the more important.

I do fear your use of "lucky" in your earlier comments, though. That disclaims a fair amount of responsibility for this choice. It puts the burden on those of us who are unlucky, and I'm not sure that that's totally fair.

(As far as putting any financial bonus from the state to good use, here in the US we have the Alternatives to Marriage Project. I wonder if they have anything like that in the UK?)

[daharyn]

aargh Super Basic HTML fail; sorry.

[liv]

Thanks very much for this comment; it really means a lot, coming from you. Some of your posts about marriage have been prominent among the stuff that's got me thinking along these lines.

I did think about including in this post something about the effect on friends who really want a life-partner and haven't found them yet. I decided that if I do post about that at all it's going to be in a locked post; I'm not quite sure I can handle the fallout. Still, when talking about luck I didn't mean to disclaim responsibility, I meant to firmly quash the meme that people who haven't found someone to marry by the time they're 30 are somehow inadequate.

Luck is never just an external event that happens to you, though. You have to make a positive decision to take up opportunities that arise, quite often you have to accept risks or downsides when you do so. I do think it was sheer luck, nothing that I take credit for, that I happened to meet Jack when I was 29 rather than 19 or 39. It just so happened that not only were both of us single and available at the time, but also we turned out to have compatible ideas of what we wanted from a long-term relationship, including being in agreement about a childfree future. It wasn't pure luck that I got my tenure-track position about 18 months into the relationship, but the timing was a fluke, and meant that just at the time we were starting to make serious relationship decisions, I also had a reasonable amount of certainty about my professional future and where I'd be geographically. Any of those things might not have happened, and I wouldn't be engaged at this point, but I also wouldn't be a fundamentally unlovable person if things had gone just a tiny bit differently.

I most certainly don't expect anyone to regard my wedding as the top priority in their life. I'd like it if my friends could make it, but I recognize it may well not be possible for financial and / or timing reasons, especially since I'm fortunate enough to have a very international crowd of friends. What I was trying to say was not, oh, I just wandered into this relationship by chance, la-la-la, I have no responsibility for the effects of my choices. My point was much more: I am engaged, and I'm happy about that, but I'm not in any way claiming to be a superior person just because circumstances lined up in such a way that made getting engaged an option.