DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bad Manners and Brimstone
HTML https://badmanners.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Weddings
*****************************************************
#Post#: 38027--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: TootsNYC Date: September 3, 2019, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Society at large needs to know who is legally married and
who isn't; [/quote]
I have always maintained that marriage is about the couple's
relationship to the rest of the world, and not so much about
their relationship with one another.
Because you can be totally committed and not married--yet the
greater world will not treat you as a legal couple (no health
insurance, no automatic inheritance, no joint property...).
And a married person can cheat, or move out, etc.--yet the
greater world will still treat you as a legal couple.
#Post#: 38030--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Songbird Date: September 3, 2019, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=TootsNYC link=topic=1288.msg38027#msg38027
date=1567542409]
[quote]Society at large needs to know who is legally married and
who isn't; [/quote]
I have always maintained that marriage is about the couple's
relationship to the rest of the world, and not so much about
their relationship with one another.
Because you can be totally committed and not married--yet the
greater world will not treat you as a legal couple (no health
insurance, no automatic inheritance, no joint property...).
And a married person can cheat, or move out, etc.--yet the
greater world will still treat you as a legal couple.
[/quote]
Exactly.
Ever hear of Frankie Lymon? Had a big hit in the 50's. "Why Do
fools Fall In Love?" Apparently Lymon liked to fall in love and
get married. but he neglected to get divorced. When he died,
at age 25, there were three different women claiming to be the
widow, claiming to be entitled to inherit his estate. A court
had to decide who was the real Mrs. Lymon.
#Post#: 38170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Twik Date: September 5, 2019, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=TootsNYC link=topic=1288.msg38027#msg38027
date=1567542409]
[quote]Society at large needs to know who is legally married and
who isn't; [/quote]
I have always maintained that marriage is about the couple's
relationship to the rest of the world, and not so much about
their relationship with one another.
Because you can be totally committed and not married--yet the
greater world will not treat you as a legal couple (no health
insurance, no automatic inheritance, no joint property...).
And a married person can cheat, or move out, etc.--yet the
greater world will still treat you as a legal couple.
[/quote]
And remember that while it may not be as significant today,
being able to slide off from one family and marry someone else
could leave women and children destitute. Not to mention the
issue of inheritances, which could sometimes be the difference
between poverty and a reasonable comfortable lifestyle.
#Post#: 38175--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Jem Date: September 5, 2019, 3:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=TootsNYC link=topic=1288.msg38027#msg38027
date=1567542409]
[quote]Society at large needs to know who is legally married and
who isn't; [/quote]
I have always maintained that marriage is about the couple's
relationship to the rest of the world, and not so much about
their relationship with one another.
Because you can be totally committed and not married--yet the
greater world will not treat you as a legal couple (no health
insurance, no automatic inheritance, no joint property...).
And a married person can cheat, or move out, etc.--yet the
greater world will still treat you as a legal couple.
[/quote]
Exactly. I always say too that a couple's decision to NOT get
married is one that comes with consequences socially, whether it
is "fair" or not. For a great many people and institutions,
unless and until people take the affirmative step to become
legally joined in marriage, they are simply not as "committed"
as those who have not taken that step.
#Post#: 38303--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Aleko Date: September 7, 2019, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I have always maintained that marriage is about the
couple's relationship to the rest of the world, and not so much
about their relationship with one another.[/quote]
Very true. Marriage has always - and when I say always, I mean
for at least four millennia, and probably more - been first and
foremost a public matter. Are these two people in a
fully-paid-up marriage? A morganatic marriage? A state of
concubinage? Just casually-hitched-up-for-the-time-being?
Because the familial and inheritance ramifications of that
status have important implications for other people - e.g. are
their children legitimate, and entitled to inherit their
father's property and social status? It's only very recently
that the couple's emotional investment in each other, if any,
has been an issue at all.
[quote]Because you can be totally committed and not married--yet
the greater world will not treat you as a legal couple (no
health insurance, no automatic inheritance, no joint
property..)[/quote]
No, it won't. And why should it, if they aren't willing to
confirm to the world that they are and wish to be a legal
couple? Indeed, how could it know for sure if they were and they
did? Would anyone be happy, if say one of a couple died in a
work accident, for the survivor's entitlement to compensation, a
widow(er)'s pension et cetera to be assessed by an official with
a clipboard coming round and checking how long they had lived
together, how many long-term purchases they had made jointly,
and asking the neighbours if they seemed fond of each other?
[quote]And a married person can cheat, or move out, etc.--yet
the greater world will still treat you as a legal
couple.[/quote]
The same is true of business and professional partners - if one
partner cheats or runs off to the Bahamas with the partnership's
funds, the partnership still legally exists and the other
partner is still responsible for its debts and other obligations
till they can officially wind it up. That doesn't lessen the
validity of business partnerships.
[quote]Exactly. I always say too that a couple's decision to NOT
get married is one that comes with consequences socially,
whether it is "fair" or not. For a great many people and
institutions, unless and until people take the affirmative step
to become legally joined in marriage, they are simply not as
"committed" as those who have not taken that step. [/quote]
Me too. A few years ago a British soldier was killed on active
service and his unmarried partner applied for a widow's pension
and was refused it. She went to law, and ultimately the MoD
caved in and gave it to her. I'm still uneasy about that. It's
almost like marrying them posthumously with him not able to
object (the way Mormons 'baptise' their long-dead ancestors - if
I were a long-dead ancestor I would be fit to be tied about
that). Every soldier going to a war zone must think about what
will happen to his loved ones if he doesn't come back. The
welfare officers must have spelt out in good time to the troops
being shipped out to Afghanistan that 'widows' pensions are for
widows - if you ever plan to marry your partner, think about
getting a licence and doing it now'. But he didn't.
#Post#: 38368--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Aleko Date: September 8, 2019, 4:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Aleko, that was so interesting! Thanks for sharing that
with us.
I guess in the US, the concerns that you raised are covered by
having to have a license issued by the state and completed and
filed by a legal officiant (government official; licensed
clergy; other licensed, sometimes temporarily, person). The
location is rendered irrelevant. Do you have licenses like that
in the UK?
We don't have any requirement like banns, though; closest thing
is the waiting period in some states after getting the license.
Come to think of it, although I don't know if it is a legal
requirement, local newspapers list marriage licenses granted, so
if there is a waiting period, that serves the purpose. How
nearby geographically must the banns be called?
Why no outdoor weddings in the UK? I guess you could probably
have an official ceremony in a government office the day before
and then do your wedding outdoors or in an unlicensed venue,
couldn't you?[/quote]
Hi Gellchom, sorry to have missed this when you first posted it!
Here goes:
No, we don't have licences of the kind you describe. We don't
need clearance from the state to get married (and the idea of
having to have a blood test is just unthinkable); it works the
other way around. You decide whether you want to have have a
civil marriage performed by a public servant, i.e. the registrar
(this constitutes the legal part of your marriage; this done,
you can go and have any kind of religious - or humanist or Jedi
- ceremony you like, which may indeed be more important to you
personally but has no legal significance); or a religious
marriage performed by a minister who is also, as part of his
post, licensed to perform and register legal marriages. The
officiant, civil or religious, acts on behalf of the state in
making the marriage legal, and carries out any necessary checks.
This is why here we have no such thing as a temporarily-licensed
officiant; the actual responsibility is so great it has to be a
trained person whose job description includes this role.
Banns of marriage are of very ancient origin - there's a wiki
article about them. I don't know if any other Christian
denominations in the UK currently require them, but no Church of
England wedding ceremony can legally take place without the
couple producing either valid certificates of banns being
called, or a Common or Special Licence from the bishop or
archbishop exempting them from that requirement.
CoE banns must be called in the parishes where the bride and
groom are resident, the idea being that their families and
neighbours are the people most likely to know whether they are
free to marry or not. NB that a CoE parish is a geographical
area; every inch of England and Wales is part of one or another
parish, and everyone who lives in a given parish, whatever their
religion or none, is technically a parishioner and entitled to
be married in the parish church. In fact, between 1753 and 1835
Christians of any denomination (except the Quakers, who were
granted a special arrangement very early on) could only legally
be married in a CoE ceremony, which meant that Catholics and
Dissenters who wanted their marriage to have any legal
recognition (e.g their children to be legitimate) were obliged
first to be married in their own chapel in the face of their own
congregation, then trot along to the parish church for a second
ceremony.
In the case of civil ceremonies, obviously you have to apply
well in advance - I think at least three weeks, but don't quote
me - and if your application is accepted and the place and time
of the ceremony fixed, the Notice of Marriage is publicly posted
up until that time, which fulfils the same object of publicising
the intended marriage.
NB that while England-and-Wales are a single entity for
legislative purposes, Scotland has an entirely different legal
system and legislation applying to one entity often doesn't
apply to the other.*
The 1753 Marriage Act didn't apply to Scotland; until 2006 you
could still become married gradually "by cohabitation with habit
and repute" (living together and calling yourselves husband and
wife), and until 1939 you could marry any time you liked simply
by making a public vow followed by consummation. No banns period
necessary. This, BTW, why eloping English couples in 18th and
19th-century romance novels - and in reality too** - routinely
jump into a fast coach and belt up to Gretna Green (the first
village over the Border) with the girl's father or guardian in
hot pursuit. If they can race into the the Gretna blacksmith's
forge gasping 'Please witness our marriage vows right now! We'll
make it worth your while!' and straight afterwards hotfoot it up
the inn stairs to a hired room and have sex, their marriage will
be irrevocably legal and the lady's guardians will be foiled.
In Scotland a whole different set of laws applies (there's a
wiki article, Marriage in Scotland) and there it is legal to get
married in the open air. I really don't know why the 2012
legislation for England-&-Wales prohibits this, though it
wouldn't surprise me if registrars up and down the land didn't
lobby the parliamentary working party as a body when the Act was
being drawn up, saying 'We don't mind having to travel all over
the place to carry out our duties, but we draw the line at
carrying them out in the rain. If you don't specify in the
legislation that the ceremony has to take place under a proper
permanent roof, we'll all resign!'
* The discrepancies can be major: for example, until 1949 the
penalty for treason in Scotland was hanging, drawing and
quartering; if any of the handful of British traitors from WWII
had been tried in Scotland, that would be the penalty to which
they would inevitably have been sentenced. England (and Wales)
had abolished this penalty (which hadn't actually been carried
out in full since 1782) in 1870.
**Captain Lord Cochrane RN, an amazingly dashing and successful
sailor whose career and exploits were the model for Jack
Aubrey's in Patrick O'Brian's wonderful series of novels, eloped
with his beloved and got married in just this way.
#Post#: 38390--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: iolaus Date: September 9, 2019, 1:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I just checked and it says notice is up for 28 days (I always
thought it was three weeks and 1 day from when we got married -
but it's either changed or I made it up)
Notice is given both where you plan on getting married
(geographical area) and where you both live - if you both live
in the same area where you are marrying it's all done on one
notice
#Post#: 38395--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Hanna Date: September 9, 2019, 7:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn’t really call it “clearance” we are getting from the
State. We just walk in and fill out a piece of paper and give
them a small fee. On the paperwork in the state where I was
married we had to affirm we aren’t related and aren’t already
married. There is no longer a blood test in that state. It’s a
state license obtained in a local government office run by the
city/county. The license is good for 30 days or thereabouts. We
gave that to the minister.
Our minister filled out the marriage certificate after the
wedding and our witnesses signed it, then he filed the paperwork
in the local courthouse, same place we had applied for the
license. We could also have taken the completed documents from
him and returned them ourselves. The minister also has to have a
license to conduct marriage ceremonies and along with that he
would have been instructed about the requirements for marriage
to be valid and where to file the paperwork.
In the US, in most States you have to obtain a license to do all
kinds of things. Cutting hair, for instance. Selling food.
Updating your home. Even to have a yard sale.
I find it kind of neat and wild that every person in an area is
considered a CoE member of their local Parrish and can get
married there. That definitely wouldn’t fly here either on the
side of the people nor on the side of most churches!
#Post#: 38401--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: TootsNYC Date: September 9, 2019, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Aleko link=topic=1288.msg38303#msg38303
date=1567875645]
....
No, it won't. And why should it, if they aren't willing to
confirm to the world that they are and wish to be a legal
couple? Indeed, how could it know for sure if they were and they
did? Would anyone be happy, if say one of a couple died in a
work accident, for the survivor's entitlement to compensation, a
widow(er)'s pension et cetera to be assessed by an official with
a clipboard coming round and checking how long they had lived
together, how many long-term purchases they had made jointly,
and asking the neighbours if they seemed fond of each other?
[/quote]
I have sometimes said, when people complain that their longtime
sweetheart, with whom they don't live, isn't being included when
spouses would be or are: They're not your spouse. If you want
them to be treated like a spouse, you have three avenues to
achieve that: Get engaged, move in together, or get married.
People will say, "You shouldn't be judging our relationship!"
but in fact, that's what they're asking you to do. With an
engagement, cohabitation, or marriage, THEY are the one
declaring how serious that relationship is.
If you're dating only, no matter how long it is, you are asking
other people to make some OTHER judgment about how serious your
relationship is. Because you have not used the three signals
that our culture recognizes, and now you are asking them to use
their decision and not your declaration (because your
declaration says the opposite, actually--you've dating a long
time and haven't gotten married; what do your actions say about
how serious you are?)
...
[quote][quote]Exactly. I always say too that a couple's decision
to NOT get married is one that comes with consequences socially,
whether it is "fair" or not. For a great many people and
institutions, unless and until people take the affirmative step
to become legally joined in marriage, they are simply not as
"committed" as those who have not taken that step.
[/quote][/quote]
You've been dating for 5 years? That means for 4 years at least,
every morning the two of you get up and decide to not get
engaged or get married, and at least 4 times (when your lease
ran out), you decided to not live together. What do your actions
say?
[quote]Me too. A few years ago a British soldier was killed on
active service and his unmarried partner applied for a widow's
pension and was refused it. She went to law, and ultimately the
MoD caved in and gave it to her. I'm still uneasy about that.
It's almost like marrying them posthumously with him not able to
object (the way Mormons 'baptise' their long-dead ancestors - if
I were a long-dead ancestor I would be fit to be tied about
that). Every soldier going to a war zone must think about what
will happen to his loved ones if he doesn't come back. The
welfare officers must have spelt out in good time to the troops
being shipped out to Afghanistan that 'widows' pensions are for
widows - if you ever plan to marry your partner, think about
getting a licence and doing it now'. But he didn't.
[/quote]
I would have much the same reaction.
Conservative Christians like to say that marriage is under
attack from gay people who want to be able to marry. I think the
institution of marriage IS under attack, but it's not from the
people who say "marriage is special and we want to be able to be
a part of it."
It's from the people who insist on having "domestic
partnerships," or who want the financial or social perks of
marriage without marrying.
There is some middle ground probably, and we're working it
out as a culture. But if marriage means something, then it means
something.
Re: your story of the widow:
In NYC, a cohabiting couple applied to purchase a co-operative
apartment. With a co-op, you actually don't purchase an
apartment; you never own it. You purchase shares in a
corporation that are assigned to the apartment, and owning them
gives you the right to occupy and modify (as well as the
responsibility of upkeep).
Since you are essentially joining a business partnership, the
other shareholders get the right to approve you as a business
partner. So you have to have a certain financial strength
(savings, earnings, etc.), credit score, personal reputation,
etc.
In this couple's case, the woman had enough earnings and savings
to qualify. They approved her as a buyer. The guy did not, and
because they were not married, the co-op had to evaluate him on
his own; he was rejected as a buyer. He WAS approved as a
tenant, which meant he could live there.
The corporation said, "If you were married, we could count you
as a single legal entity, and you'd both be approved. But since
you're not married, and the man has no legal claim to the
financial assets and income of the woman, we can't approve him.
"This is a business decision based on legalities; we aren't
judging him as an unfit person, and we'd be happy to have him
live here."
The couple claimed it was discrimination against them on the
basis of marital status and sued.
I hope they lost.
And we are LONG way away from eliminating the wedding breakfast!
#Post#: 38423--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Gellchom Date: September 9, 2019, 2:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Toots, as usual. I respect people's decision not
to get married.
Socially, the only thing it really means to people who aren't
related or have some legal or property interest at stake, is
whether or not we must consider a couple as a social unit --
i.e., if you invite one, you must invite both, to events like
weddings and dinner parties (not things like girls/boys night
out, book club, showers, reunions, work parties, etc.).
And there is a rule on that, and it's what we all know: married,
engaged, and, recently added, living together as a couple (as
opposed to just as roommates). Prior to recognition in all
states of same-sex marriage, many same-sex couples fell into
this category as well if they were living together or had had
some kind of commitment ceremony -- now, in the US, they are in
the same social boat as everyone else. It is NOT about
affection or seriousness or the length of the relationship; it
is about formal status. As Toots points out, if it were about
judging the seriousness (or, heaven help us, the quality) of the
relationship, then the couple is indeed asking others to make a
judgment about their relationship.
And I think that what a lot of people miss in the discussion is
that the "social unit" rule is a minimum. Hosts are perfectly
free to consider this or that couple (and even a poly group) as
a social unit and invite accordingly. Most of us do. There are
many elderly couples who do not marry or move in together for
all kinds of pragmatic reasons but who definitely behave as a
social unit, even always hosting together (that joint-hosting
thing is often a benchmark for me). There are many other kinds
of cases that just about anyone would agree should be treated as
social units. But that doesn't change the rule.
Similarly, hosts are free to invite couples together that they
do not consider to be a social unit.
So the only issue is whether or not they are violating etiquette
if hosts do not invite both to "social unit events." And no
matter how much you love your sweetheart and how long you have
been "together," and no matter how much better your relationship
is than your married friends', if you aren't married, engaged,
or cohabiting, they aren't. If it is that important to you for
others to have to treat you as a recognized social unit, then
become one.
After all, if society is required to respect marriage and
engagement, then it should also be respecting the choice not to
be married.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page