No More Marriage–Outside of Church

29 Mar

Brace yourself:  I am about to opine an unpopular point of view–even if it causes a revolution (which I can only hope it does).  I have always been iconoclast in sharing my opinions, and am not afraid to come under scrutiny here.  My nonconformist belief is directed at the entire idea of marriage–it makes me so mad!  I take great umbrage at the fact we are conditioned from the time we are nascent, to want our wedding, marry a prince, and live happily ever after (only after said marriage).  I resent the fact patriarchal institutions have such a strong-hold over our dreams.  As a second part of this indoctrination, we are told from an incipient age that we should not have sex until after this big day.  These inculcations are so completely ingrained that we believe that we are not whole until after marrying our opposite sex counterpart.  How disgusting (for women, especially) that we feel incomplete until we coalesce (with a man)?

Weddings are a huge money-maker.  Attach the word and it’s an automatic 60% added to the price tag.  Prodigal spending on the brides side is mandatory.  Never mind the dress can never be worn again, the food is perishable and eaten quickly, and the flowers will die within the week–these items come at a premium price!  And they are essential to the bride’s overall life-long happiness.  Weddings are like Valentine’s Day on steroids.  They are an antiquated tradition meant to induce profligate spending.  Women are taught that this is their “special day,” the most important day of their entire lives.  The expectation is they must pay, pay, pay for everything to be perfect.  Weddings are good for patriarchy, because they generate capitalism (and for many other reasons–don’t EVEN get me started on the ownership of women), which is just wonderful for supporting the establishment.

This revolt of mine has not always been in place.  I, like most other girls, longed for my big wedding day, and even contemplated colors and stuff.  I have just recently begun to think I do not agree with the concept of marriage at all.  Don’t blame my parents–they have been happily married for 25+ years, so I am hardly a bitter product of divorce.  I find it incredibly estimable that they love each other and are able to work through life’s struggles together.  I think it’s admirable when couples are able to HAPPILY stay together.  That is an increasingly rarefied example.  I am not cynical towards marriage because it has been proven not to work, time and time again.  With deference to those who beat the odds, I must acknowledge the statistics of the poor success rate of marriage, because they say a lot.  The fact marriage in practice is only a remnant of what it is supposed to be, should take the wind out of the proponents’ sails.  Marriage as a traditional, holy, sacrosanct institution is deeply flawed.  Quick-E-Marriages *cough* Nevada *cough* adultery, domestic abuse, polygamy, swinging, etc. . .  Has tarnished that image, leaving only a vestige of the original intent and sentiment.  However, the 50% plus divorce rate, and many, many examples of real-life failing coupes (lots and lots for the record) I have encountered don’t even factor into my argument.

I don’t withhold the obligatory panegyric to all that is marriage, because it is a religious notion with supposedly unbiased America backing it up financially.  Married couples have every reason to have an effective partnership–they are given tax privilege, joint insurance, child-raising benefits, ownership and inheritance rights, the list goes on and on (1400 state and federal advantages in all).  Check out for a more comprehensive list.  I want the state to abolish benefits and funding for all existing marriages.  This double standard is obviously biased and an axiomof hatred.  That is really the unfair aspect of recognized marriages.  Let people go to their church as man and women, have the big ceremony as a religious experience, and then leave it at that.  Church (and only church) recognizes marriages.  There, no moral conflicts with the gays, but also no unfair advantages!

As for “the gays”:  I am not picketing for the gays to have the right to marry, or the diluted “domestic partnership,” or “civil union.” I find those two concepts a matter of politicking and think these titles are just another way of shrewdly furthering the reach of patriarchy by diplomatically offering a counter-offer to quell those questioning the entrenched prejudice that is marriage.  I absolutely scoff at our conservative, religious leaders exploiting gays and lesbians further by offering this “compromise” we are expected to be happy with. I question those gullible enough to believe they are winning some battle when they are (ephemerally) granted the right to civil unions or domestic partnerships in certain states–as if it’s the same concept as marriage.

And speaking of marriage, protecting families, and gays, what about sexual education?  Those who preach abstinence-only sexual education–what about the homos?  Let me get this straight (pun intended):  It is inappropriate to have any kind of sexual relations out of wedlock, BUT same sex couples are denied the right to marry.  So I am supposed to reach adolescence, young adulthood, middle-age, and finally death and never have sex???  In arrogating my right to marry, the religious right has also appropriated my right to have any type of sex in my lifetime?!  Let me repeat this crazy statement so you, my reader, can feel the full impact of it:  Gays and lesbians are never allowed to have sex in their entire lives.  What a neat little package for the world!  They would never have to be shocked and appalled and think of two men engaging in “unseemly” activity.  Wouldn’t that fix everything?!

It’s not just the religious right–though it IS fun to blame everything narrow-minded on them!  The institution of church is fairly dogmatic in their theories about marriage.  And yes, they have a vested interest in supporting all things patriarchal:  Generating money in the form of officiating fees from passionate newlyweds to build bigger and better churches, supporting the traditional family to keep “unruly” minorities marginalized, and delving into the world of politics to dictatorially mandate the entire country to adhere to their views.  No, it’s not just religion to blame for the fact the ideal of marriage is advocated and defended so rigidly.  The media panders to the notion of weddings and its resultant couples too.  Movies such as “Father of the Bride” enforce society’s views on the matter of marriage, by showing just what is acceptable.  Shows like, “Bridezillas,” “My Fair Wedding,” not to mention the entire network devoted to newlyweds further proves how important everyone’s adherence to this inflexible doctrine is.  And don’t forget the results of this couple-hood–TV/movies/media in general hardly shows anything other than the traditional husband/wife model!  Even if a person could manage not to catch any of the afore-mentioned programs by accident–they would have to try pretty hard to miss the commercials, billboards, magazine ads, and internet spam about weddings and about “normal” married couples.

The fact I dare to ask why marriage is a tradition upheld with so much vehemence will create an insurrection.  People will accuse me of cynicism, or worse–hating love!  Going against the norm of this (outdated, flawed) concept is rebellion.  I think I’m right to question the motives of those who want to protect marriage, and the whole concept of marriage itself.  I think an uprising is exactly what is needed.  Right now, you are saying I’m bitter. . .  And crazy.  I think it’s you people (meaning everyone who blindly follows the propaganda of marriage without analysis of what it MEANS) are the ones that are whack.  Yay for the people who want to marry within their religious community purely for the love and commitment you garner.  That’s all you should get though.  Why should the countries laws benefit you more than any other citizen?

In closing, I give much praise to those of you who can make the traditional model of marriage work–just the way God intended.  But for couples who just marry because that is the thing to do, or for monetary reasons, or worse, those that easily get into a marriage then desecrate that spiritual ideal in some way–YOU are mocking the whole institution.  It’s not the gays wrecking marriage it’s the people that get married for the wrong reasons, and it’s the overbearing forces such as capitalism, patriarchy, and prejudice destroying it.

Here is the big solution for all! Allow marriage only to devoted, church-attending, loving couples, and have said ceremony in their particular church.  At the same time, yank all state and federal benefits and funding from all married couples.  Keep marriage in the church, and only in the church–disentangle the whole thing from the United State’s laws.  Think about that.

2 Responses to “No More Marriage–Outside of Church”

  1. KC March 29, 2011 at 8:47 PM #

    I don’t know why you wouldn’t want equal rights for us! I picket for the gays to marry!

    • kit10phish March 29, 2011 at 9:03 PM #

      That’s just it–gay marriage isn’t equal at all. It isn’t equal until the marriage is recognized in all 50 states,all the time, and by everyone. It isn’t equal until it’s given the same benefits, and offered the same funding. These civil unions and fleeting domestic partnerships are offered only in a handful of places, and only to quiet the LGBT protesters–without actually giving them the same thing as heterosexual couples have.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: