Marriage is absolutely sonething that a state confers on people because it is only recognised by the state if it happens within certain parameters. If two people say the recognised words to each other outside of those parameters the state does not confer marriage upon them.
Arguing about whether what the state does is "confer" a marriage, or recognizes that one exists, might be a bit pedantic, but I think it's true.
Although for practical purposes, whether what the state does is marry couples, or register that they have married each other, might not make much difference.
I was at a wedding recently where the bride promised to obey which caused a stir among those not expecting it. The grooms brother subsequently confirmed that in fact it would be the other way round.
I was at a wedding recently where the bride promised to obey which caused a stir among those not expecting it. The grooms brother subsequently confirmed that in fact it would be the other way round.
Several years ago, I was asked to sing at the wedding of a couple I didn’t know. (The bride had heard me sing at the wedding of her cousin, who was a law school friend.) The bride and groom had written their own vows, and they weren’t mirrors of one another; they had each written their own.
I had to exercise a great deal of self-control when the groom, in his vows, promised to make sure the bride was happy every day for the rest of her life. I had seen enough in the lead-up to the wedding to know that was an impossible-to-keep promise. I really did want to jump up, call for a time out and tell him that he really needed to reconsider that promise.
I was at a wedding recently where the bride promised to obey which caused a stir among those not expecting it. The grooms brother subsequently confirmed that in fact it would be the other way round.
Several years ago, I was asked to sing at the wedding of a couple I didn’t know. (The bride had heard me sing at the wedding of her cousin, who was a law school friend.) The bride and groom had written their own vows, and they weren’t mirrors of one another; they had each written their own.
I had to exercise a great deal of self-control when the groom, in his vows, promised to make sure the bride was happy every day for the rest of her life. I had seen enough in the lead-up to the wedding to know that was an impossible-to-keep promise. I really did want to jump up, call for a time out and tell him that he really needed to reconsider that promise.
It's an impossible-to-keep promise for anyone to make! I think part of the appeal of traditional vows for me is the recognition that sometimes life will be hard and that this is normal (and a lot of the time this will be caused by outside factors out of your control anyway), and I think that it's all too easy to leave this out if you write your own vows. What matters is how the couple respond to their circumstances.
I was at a wedding recently where the bride promised to obey which caused a stir among those not expecting it. The grooms brother subsequently confirmed that in fact it would be the other way round.
Several years ago, I was asked to sing at the wedding of a couple I didn’t know. (The bride had heard me sing at the wedding of her cousin, who was a law school friend.) The bride and groom had written their own vows, and they weren’t mirrors of one another; they had each written their own.
I had to exercise a great deal of self-control when the groom, in his vows, promised to make sure the bride was happy every day for the rest of her life. I had seen enough in the lead-up to the wedding to know that was an impossible-to-keep promise. I really did want to jump up, call for a time out and tell him that he really needed to reconsider that promise.
It's an impossible-to-keep promise for anyone to make!
Of course! But aside from the general lack of reality in the promise itself, what I’d seen made me pretty sure he’d be very lucky if he managed to keep that promise through the honeymoon.
I think part of the appeal of traditional vows for me is the recognition that sometimes life will be hard and that this is normal (and a lot of the time this will be caused by outside factors out of your control anyway), and I think that it's all too easy to leave this out if you write your own vows.
I agree. I like that traditional are pretty much lacking in romanticism and sentimentality.
Well, there's common sense and realism and I hear you there @Nick Tamen and @Pomona. But the folie à deux (mutual delusional euphoria) we call Romantic Love and that often ends in marriage proposals and weddings is brimming over with irrational romanticism and sentimentality.
A starry-eyed groom promising to make his bride happy every single day of their life together despite all the evidence already to the contrary makes me smile...
I mean....as a disabled person I'm reminded of how many marriages end when one partner gets seriously ill or becomes disabled. Promising to have and to hold in sickness and in health is very romantic to me! Romanticism and sentimentality isn't the issue for me, it's more the question left hanging of "what happens when you're not able to make her happy?" - only promising to be there for the nice things isn't very reassuring for the other person, surely. I would be concerned that such a couple isn't taking marriage seriously enough.
I think wanting to make your spouse happy every day, and promising to do that even though you know that's not possible are imo two very different things.
Our Methodist minister friend, who was a wise person for the House of Freedom I was in, used the Church of South India service for our wedding 51 years ago.
I don't remember the wording, but we both used the same wording.
LKKspouse kept her family name (pleased that I expected her to do that). The taking of the husband's name was seen as a convention and not a requirement.
We were married on the verandah of her brother's house. In Queensland, Australia only the celebrant has to be registered, not the venue.
I wonder if making grand claims in your wedding vows is linked to better or worse future behaviour. Given how many relationships break up, it could go either way, with people improving their behaviour to live up them or rejecting them quickly as totally unworkable.
If I was in a position to write my vows now I would say something like "I promise to do my best to look after you, to put up with you, to not live in anger at your foibles."
I'm not sure what my wife would say but it will likely be hard to hear. If we were one person she'd definitely be my better half.
I mean....as a disabled person I'm reminded of how many marriages end when one partner gets seriously ill or becomes disabled. Promising to have and to hold in sickness and in health is very romantic to me!
100% agreed although I'm not disabled*. I find the traditional vows rather romantic but not kitschy. We used them, and I really like them as long as the couple has actually thought them through. They should actively mean all of them. If you (general you) haven't thought about what life with a disabled spouse might be, you shouldn't be getting married, because hopefully it will happen to most of us who are married. (Shoutout to everyone's father/grandfather who said "the only thing worse than getting old...")
*literally needing glasses is a disability, but society accounts for it, so that doesn't count.
It's an impossible-to-keep promise for anyone to make!
it is indeed. My mum refused to promise to obey back in 1945 when it was required for a bride. She said she wasnt going to make a promised which she didnt intend to keep Maybe one day I shall discover that my parents' marriage wasnt valid because of the lack of obedience!
Mrs RR certainly promised to obey me. She explained (a) it made sure I wouldn't ask her to do anything she won't, can't or shouldn't obey, thus putting the onus on me and (b) it was an erotic necessity.
Comments
Arguing about whether what the state does is "confer" a marriage, or recognizes that one exists, might be a bit pedantic, but I think it's true.
Although for practical purposes, whether what the state does is marry couples, or register that they have married each other, might not make much difference.
As long as it’s safe, sane, and consensual… 🙂
I had to exercise a great deal of self-control when the groom, in his vows, promised to make sure the bride was happy every day for the rest of her life. I had seen enough in the lead-up to the wedding to know that was an impossible-to-keep promise. I really did want to jump up, call for a time out and tell him that he really needed to reconsider that promise.
It's an impossible-to-keep promise for anyone to make! I think part of the appeal of traditional vows for me is the recognition that sometimes life will be hard and that this is normal (and a lot of the time this will be caused by outside factors out of your control anyway), and I think that it's all too easy to leave this out if you write your own vows. What matters is how the couple respond to their circumstances.
I agree. I like that traditional are pretty much lacking in romanticism and sentimentality.
A starry-eyed groom promising to make his bride happy every single day of their life together despite all the evidence already to the contrary makes me smile...
I think wanting to make your spouse happy every day, and promising to do that even though you know that's not possible are imo two very different things.
I don't remember the wording, but we both used the same wording.
LKKspouse kept her family name (pleased that I expected her to do that). The taking of the husband's name was seen as a convention and not a requirement.
We were married on the verandah of her brother's house. In Queensland, Australia only the celebrant has to be registered, not the venue.
If I was in a position to write my vows now I would say something like "I promise to do my best to look after you, to put up with you, to not live in anger at your foibles."
I'm not sure what my wife would say but it will likely be hard to hear. If we were one person she'd definitely be my better half.
*literally needing glasses is a disability, but society accounts for it, so that doesn't count.
It's an impossible-to-keep promise for anyone to make!
it is indeed. My mum refused to promise to obey back in 1945 when it was required for a bride. She said she wasnt going to make a promised which she didnt intend to keep Maybe one day I shall discover that my parents' marriage wasnt valid because of the lack of obedience!