Commitment Ceremonies for Heteros

Wanderingal

Posts: 5,504

The "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" program ahd an interesting report on commitment ceremonies for heterosexual couples who would like to get married fbut for financial or other reasons are not able to.

The couple who was intervidewed said they think of themselves as a married couple and that their commitment ceremony (a very beautiful ceremony that was shown celebrated by their female Lutheran minister) was in effect a weddng ceremony for them.

I'll try to get a better link than this

www.pbs.org/religionðicsnewsweekly

What are your thoughts on this?

(and if anyone has a better link 'd be thrilled if you'd post it.

The same show had a report on how the supreme court in India had declared that ALL school children must be fed a nourishing meal at school because so many of India's rural children are malnourished and have stunted physical and mental development.

The SC made the government responsible for doing the feeding.
Imagine the US supreme court doing this.....)

CharikIeia

Posts: 8,303

Sep 22, 2011 -- 2:38AM, Wanderingal wrote:

What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that ceremonies are a crutch for the weak and a delusion for the gullible.

Romantic relations are a very intimate, inter-personal thing involving two people, not an audience. It is in my view adequate to keep this character, and not call upon wider social circles.

If a partnership doesn't work without ceremony, a ceremony will just put the pressure of social expectations on the two partners. The partnership becomes more coercive and less voluntary, which I consider quite poisonous.

Marriage by tradition is about ownership and property rights, and (in powerful circles) about alliance formation. All this is disturbing those contents of a romantic partnership that I consider important - above all the voluntary character, the genuine interest in the other, the attention and care invested in the relationship each new day.

Because of the above, I am generally suspicious of all "commitment ceremonies", marriage included. I find it perverse of sorts that the government and the churches are complicit in replacing genuine love and commitment by social expectations. But of course, this way society makes sure it survives... love and freedom are too unreliable!

-

Now, concernin teh other topic of school meals: Kudos, India!

When I was a school child in West Berlin, we got government-subsidised dairy products at school, almost for free. Of course, this was a solution to two problems: over-production of milk in the EEC, and child health.

tl;dr

TemplarS

Posts: 5,160

Well, is this about the ceremony or the legal contract?

It was always possible to have the latter without the former (go to a judge). So now you can have the former without the latter.

This is, I think, a complex issure, both legally and sociologically. In the right circumstances, any way that works for the couple is okay by me.

I think that some sign of a commitment (be it a marriage, ceremony, or whatever) is of value. The point is that relationships are not always easy, and the path is not always smooth. There will always be difficulties of some magnitude. I think that a committed relationship should not be too easy to walk away from, and to the extent the legal contract forces some attempt at working things out (especially when there are children involved- now you no longer have simply the interests of the couple to look out for) it can be beneficial.

Of course, in the ideal world, if you have two people who are capable of behaving in a mature, loving, sensible way, neither the legal contract nor a ceremony might be needed (this is, Char, the situation you refer to). In the real world, though, where some (if not most) people are headstrong, emotional, irrational, short-sighted, I can see the value in some sort of sign of commitment.

But, in the end it is a personal thing. To each his/her own.

Girlchristian

Posts: 9,463

Wgal, here's the actual link, www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episo....

I think that for this couple, something like this makes sense. I'm not sure that it makes as much sense for a younger couple who is planning on having children together, buy a home together, have the same bank account, etc... The legal protections are pretty big so to forego those, especially if one is having kids, could do more harm than good. Even little things like you're not legally a 'spouse' so legally you can't make medical decisions for your spouse or can't be added to their health insurance (depending on the plan), etc...

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase

Do_unto_others

Posts: 6,266

Heterosexuals have always been able to have any kind of ceremony they want, religious or not. This couple chose to forego any legal protections/benefits that come with marriage (or even, on a far more limited scale, those of "civil" unions - seems they live in a State that 'allows' them).

How is this story 'news'?

Roodog

Posts: 9,732

Sep 22, 2011 -- 2:38AM, Wanderingal wrote:
The "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" program ahd an interesting report on commitment ceremonies for heterosexual couples who would like to get married fbut for financial or other reasons are not able to.

The couple who was intervidewed said they think of themselves as a married couple and that their commitment ceremony (a very beautiful ceremony that was shown celebrated by their female Lutheran minister) was in effect a weddng ceremony for them.

I'll try to get a better link than this

www.pbs.org/religionðicsnewsweekly

What are your thoughts on this?

(and if anyone has a better link 'd be thrilled if you'd post it.

The same show had a report on how the supreme court in India had declared that ALL school children must be fed a nourishing meal at school because so many of India's rural children are malnourished and have stunted physical and mental development.

The SC made the government responsible for doing the feeding.
Imagine the US supreme court doing this.....)

WGal,

It's still a marriage.

Even without the paperwork or ceremony, it's a Common Law marriage.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9

farragut

Posts: 2,867

"Even without the paperwork or ceremony, it's a Common Law marriage"

That depends, Roo, on the laws of the particular state. If, for instance, Wisconsin law presumed that after, say, three years, such a relationship became equivalent to legal marriage, then their pretense would be ended and they would have to accept the burden of marriage, in all its glory.

Wanderingal

Posts: 5,504

Sep 22, 2011 -- 1:08PM, farragut wrote:

"Even without the paperwork or ceremony, it's a Common Law marriage"

That depends, Roo, on the laws of the particular state. If, for instance, Wisconsin law presumed that after, say, three years, such a relationship became equivalent to legal marriage, then their pretense would be ended and they would have to accept the burden of marriage, in all its glory.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting what "common law" actually means in the US--and in each state--legally as opposed to the common misconceptions about "Common law."

Whew!

;)

Erey

Posts: 15,073

First, I tend to enjoy ceremonies and I personaly find the social expectations that come with a ceremony a good thing (as in I pledged my devotion to this person in front of my family and God).

I am not so sure I understand fully this situtation. People who can't afford weddings typically the marriage part (the liscense the vows delivered from a minister or judge) are very inexpensive it is the party that costs so much money. I think my marriage liscense was like 30 dollars and then the minister's fee was like maybe 150 dollars but the rental of the space, the food, the dress, the music, the drinkipoos all that cost a whole lot more. And many ministers will if need be waive a fee.

I will say my Grandfather was in a relationship with a woman for like 15 years who was devoted to him but would never marry him because she recieved her late husband's pension and would lose it if she married. So I guess for that kind of a situation a non-binding ceremony might work.

Wanderingal

Posts: 5,504

Who said anything about "not affording a wedding"?

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot