Marriage or Spiritual Marriage?

[Winds of Thor]

I once heard someone ask if they were married but they said they hadn't gone through an actual marriage ceremony including witnesses.

I agreed to marry a girlfriend but a wedding ceremony didn't ever happen. Nor did a marriage license, legal documents with the state, etc.

What defines marriage?

 

[Thursday]

It depends on the couple. But the basis of a marriage is trust bar none. Wherever you go, whoever you talk to, whatever you lose, you know that in a body, behind a set of eyes, is someone that understands you and wants to understand you. You know that any disagreement is simply that and you can respect their opinion and take heed to their counsel. They are a partner and friend in this adventure.

 

[Society]

when i asked my exwife to marry me, part of the ideal was that she was on the same page as me, that we both wanted a spiritual marriage, maybe a celebration, but none of the other stuff...

unfortunately, immigration offices don't go for spiritual marriages. so we got the paperwork done.

and we never reached the point where we could financially afford the wedding, so i suppose we where spiritually engaged while being legally married...

 

[ceecee]

I once heard someone ask if they were married but they said they hadn't gone through an actual marriage ceremony including witnesses.

I agreed to marry a girlfriend but a wedding ceremony didn't ever happen. Nor did a marriage license, legal documents with the state, etc.

What defines marriage?

All this spiritual/common law/whatever is fine as an idea to hold between two people. But they are not married unless they are legally married. I have never understood why people say - we have everything but the piece of paper or we have kids and a house and a life together so we are pretty much married. They're not. At all. If you feel like you are married and you want people to view you as such - get fucking married! Ugh

 

[kyuuei]

Pagan rituals make marriages out of spirituality.. It is how I hope to be married one day. But as far as a legal marriage--this idea scares me.

 

[Society]

I have never understood why people say - we have everything but the piece of paper or we have kids and a house and a life together so we are pretty much married.

so nobody was ever married before marriage licensing became a staple of modern society?

 

[ceecee]

so nobody was ever married before marriage licensing became a staple of modern society?

Of course but that isn't applicable in today's world as you said yourself. What I mean is it's fine to have a spiritual connection, a spiritual feeling and approach to marriage but that's not a marriage. My issue lies with people who feel they are married and live like they are married but don't take the step to make it legal. If they are against any kind of legal union, why do they want to be recognized as married by others and treated as such?

 

[Society]

Of course but that isn't applicable in today's world as you said yourself. What I mean is it's fine to have a spiritual connection, a spiritual feeling and approach to marriage but that's not a marriage. My issue lies with people who feel they are married and live like they are married but don't take the step to make it legal. If they are against any kind of legal union, why do they want to be recognized as married by others and treated as such?

because for a lot of people, semantics are an organic result of mental associations rather then strict definitions. so when they think of marriage, they think about the promises the couple made for each other, the start of a family together, the social treatment of them as a single unit, etc'. the last thing of their mind is the paperwork - the only mental associations most people have with the paperwork are when it comes to divorce and they would rather not think about that when they are married.

for myself, after having lost my stepson even when their was legal marriage, i would never again even consider starting a family without marriage and/or adoption papers - not because i care about the definition but because the protection it grants me as a man regarding my rights for the child are way more important to me then the affect on the bank acount.

but back then the blind trust was way too easy for me to even consider this.

 

[ceecee]

because for a lot of people, semantics are an organic result of mental associations rather then strict definitions. so when they think of marriage, they think about the promises the couple made for each other, the start of a family together, the social treatment of them as a single unit, etc'. the last thing of their mind is the paperwork - the only mental associations most people have with the paperwork are when it comes to divorce and they would rather not think about that when they are married.

Hmm. I would think when it come to the person you love and want to spend your life with, have a family, be a single unit, you would want all the legal means to do this with the least amount of outside interference. I have a hard time believing people don't really consider all that. Many can't wait to plan a wedding, some women plan for it before there is even a potential husband in the picture.

stepson even when their was legal marriage, i would never again even consider starting a family without marriage and/or adoption papers - not because i care about the definition but because the protection it grants me as a man regarding my rights for the child are way more important to me then the affect on the bank acount.
but back then the blind trust was way too easy for me to even consider this.

I agree. My husband has had legal guardianship over my sons for as long as we have been married and it's one more reason we actually got married. They are 21 and 17 now so it's not so much of an issue but he's always been their father in all aspects of life. That's how we have seen it and wanted all legal protection to carry that out if need be. Wills, POA, everything. It was well worth the cost and time.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

[MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION]

People who only consider marriage legitimate if the state has legally endorsed it are allowing their thinking beholden to external structures of approval. Society does make it difficult to function as a married couple without a license because of issues of medical insurance, next-of-kin rights in medical emergencies, retirement, etc. As long as society does not allow marriage as an equal inherent right to all its citizens, then the there is certainly no moral way the license is what defines it.

A second issue is that the manner in which people define their most intimate, personal relationships should be respected and seen as protected inside their boundaries of personal space. To have the state define your relationship is a significant intrusion just as having the state define your sexuality, or other aspects of your personal space. People can define their marriages however fits their personal belief system. Thinking the state defines your personal relationships is to allow your personal space to be beholden to bureaucracy.

 

[Society]

Hmm. I would think when it come to the person you love and want to spend your life with, have a family, be a single unit, you would want all the legal means to do this with the least amount of outside interference. I have a hard time believing people don't really consider all that. Many can't wait to plan a wedding, some women plan for it before there is even a potential husband in the picture.

a lot of people have the weddings or some form of celebrations without the paperwork. for others, the whole thing of becoming "like we're married" followed a pragnancy, and getting the time and money for that when your taking care of little ones can be difficult, and for some more work then it's worth.

also, marriage has being getting a very negative reputation among my generation (Y)... the good ones are quiet, its the bad marriages and bad divorces that are loud enough, romur-worthy enough and media worthy enough to hear about.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The Western-European based wedding ceremony is quite pretty, but filled with archaic thinking. The veiled bride in a white dress given away from father to groom has implications of non-personhood, and especially non-ownership of self as a woman. The institution was originally conceived of as a means to transfer property through inheritance. Marriage is a social structure to secure ownership and it is then combined with the ideals of love.

There are respectable ideas imbedded in the process and it is meaningful for people to intend to spend their lives together and to form stable family units for offspring. There are also a lot of problems with the institution as it is established in our society and there are options that are better for some individuals. Marriage creates a framework in which a lot of suffering can exist when there are power imbalances in finances and abuse is present - which to some extent happen too often. Being legally bound can be a protection, but it can also make it more difficult to correct problems. Marriage is not an ideal social institution, it just happens to be the one that evolved in our society and it has negatives as well as positives and should be continually questioned and analyzed, rather than blindly followed.

Edit: It is also problematic that the legal institution of marriage is presented as an ideal and encourages looking down on people who are not comfortable with it. The underlying assumption that deep love correlates with legal documentation is a constructed association. It is similar to the association that deep love correlates with spending a lot of money on diamonds which was a deliberate advertising campaign that doesn't go back more than a hundred years. I've been married almost four years, and just recently got the license for the pragmatic reason of helping each other in medical situations. My devotion to him is unrelated to a state license, but is a result of his nature and of mine. I have equal respect for other people who choose for themselves how to define their most significant relationships and consider it to be inside their personal space and completely inappropriate for outsiders to judge.

 

[Winds of Thor]

I would see one reason for the public ceremony component, a very important one...is speaking the spiritual entity into life in the presence of witnesses which demonstrates the seriousness showing alignment of will and intentions, and also as a celebration.

I have always viewed the exchanging of vows as the real marriage part of the public witnessing or ceremony. The other words are nice and usually some background for everyone to kind of be filled in about the bride and groom, but those other words aren't really the core of the legitimizing two as one flesh.

Thanks

 

[ceecee]

[MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION]

there is certainly no moral way the license is what defines it.

A second issue is that the manner in which people define their most intimate, personal relationships should be respected and seen as protected inside their boundaries of personal space. To have the state define your relationship is a significant intrusion just as having the state define your sexuality, or other aspects of your personal space. People can define their marriages however fits their personal belief system. Thinking the state defines your personal relationships is to allow your personal space to be beholden to bureaucracy.

I never, ever said the state defines my marriage, nor do I think it should define anyone elses marriage. Hell no. I don't want anyone all up in my business and a legal marriage is the only way to keep that to a minimum. But people shouldn't expect anyone else to treat a couple as if they are married when they aren't. It won't happen and furthermore, if you have children, property, a business and assets, not being legally married isn't a very responsible way to manage them.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I never, ever said the state defines my marriage, nor do I think it should define anyone elses marriage. Hell no. I don't want anyone all up in my business and a legal marriage is the only way to keep that to a minimum. But people shouldn't expect anyone else to treat a couple as if they are married when they aren't. It won't happen and furthermore, if you have children, property, a business and assets, not being legally married isn't a very responsible way to manage them.

It makes sense to not have the state define personal marriage, but can you explain what does? Why is it that people who function as married without a license are "not married"? How is that different from having the state license define the marriage? Is it the religious endorsement that you see making the difference? Is it indirectly the state license because it is more responsible to have its advantages and love is associated with responsibility? What is the difference between legally married and co-habitation with love for a lifetime besides the legal aspect that you see as making the fundamental difference?

 

[ceecee]

It makes sense to not have the state define personal marriage, but can you explain what does? Why is it that people who function as married without a license are "not married"?

Because they are defining their relationship and that's perfectly fine to do but they aren't legally married. Why do you think gay couples are fighting to be legally married? To enjoy the same legal benefits that het couples do. It won't change anything about the connection they have to each other and/or the spiritual approach.

Is it the religious endorsement that you see making the difference?

Oh god no. It has nothing to do with it. Religion plays virtually no role in my marriage. It can in others but it's definitely not necessary, it's a couple's right to choose it or not.

Is it indirectly the state license because it is more responsible to have its advantages and love is associated with responsibility?

Well, yes. If you marry someone you are now one unit and responsible for each others needs, well being, etc. Love alone doesn't pay the bills.

What is the difference between legally married and co-habitation with love for a lifetime besides the legal aspect that you see as making the fundamental difference?

Nothing. It is only the legal aspects of marriage that are the fundamental difference to me.

 

[Society]

[MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] .. i'm wondering what do you think about the opposite state to the one you are describing: me and my exwife haven't gone through a divorce yet... i am guessing neither one of us is up for it finaincially (legal fees can be freaking huge) or mentally (recovering and rebuilding our seperate lives is more then handful), so this might be like that for awhile. by your definition, are we married?

 

[garbage]

It depends on the couple. But the basis of a marriage is trust bar none. Wherever you go, whoever you talk to, whatever you lose, you know that in a body, behind a set of eyes, is someone that understands you and wants to understand you. You know that any disagreement is simply that and you can respect their opinion and take heed to their counsel. They are a partner and friend in this adventure.

Pretty much this. My definition of marriage is kinda.. nebulous, but based upon trust.

For the record, the girl is ENFJ like you and would describe it as you do. Trust is key.

We're not married yet, and we've got a lil' ways to go before we are. We're undergoing premarital counseling right now, and we've both got some personal ducks to get in a row before we walk down the aisle.

I wouldn't want much to change for us on the wedding day. I would want it to largely be a celebration of the relationship that we have built over time with one another, not an abrupt change in how we view one another. There's some formal and legal recognition thrown in, but it's not the point in and of itself.

Making it the turning point, as I've seen others do, has led to undue stress and expectations placed upon that day. "If we get married, everything is going to magically fix itself!! Forever!!"

I cannot imagine not having the opportunity to get to know each other on all levels (including the contentious ones--cohabitation, sex, etc.) before signing the formal agreement. I know that there are other cultures out there that have other stances--for example, some cultures figure that if you are arranged to marry someone early, you have your whole lives to figure one another out--but I can't imagine making that work.

I love and support her without a formal contract (but we are also aiming for a formal contract!), and the marriage itself would be but a celebration of that. After that, we would ask.. "what's next?"

(Well, okay; we've already talked extensively about our plans after marriage. But you know what I mean. The point is that it's an evolving adventure.)

 

[ceecee]

[MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] .. i'm wondering what do you think about the opposite state to the one you are describing: me and my exwife haven't gone through a divorce yet... i am guessing neither one of us is up for it finaincially (legal fees can be freaking huge) or mentally (recovering and rebuilding our seperate lives is more then handful), so this might be like that for awhile. by your definition, are we married?

Having been through a legal separation (living apart, separate finances, etc) and divorce, I can say yes you are still married, even though your lives are completely separate, as far as the law is concerned. I don't necessarily agree with that though. On the up side, it does make the divorce a little easier from a legal standpoint when you have been living separately for some time.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

Legal paperwork = marriage