Marriage: Is it Sacred?

Tailgate Ceremony

Published on February 18, 2004 By stevendedalus In Current Events

A North Miami couple struck up a relationship via the internet and eventually met in the flesh. After living together for a while, the inevitable happened — pregnancy. Nobly they applied for a marriage license before Valentine’s Day which they planned would be the big day.

Well, the big day came and what did they do? They collared a red ribbon on their Labrador, and all drove off in their Dodge Ram pickup for the nearest DRIVE-THRU chapel to tie the knot. Casually dressed, T’ shirts and shorts — a sharp contrast to blogger Tangled Wishes dream* — they sat holding hands on the tail gate while the Labrador witnessed the “ceremony” performed through the window by the owner of the quickie “chapel.” It surprised me that while they were at it they didn’t order fries and big Macs for a reception.

In light of the movement of gay couples to lend some dignity to their relationship, could it be that this illustration is indicative of heterosexual couples moving away from the sanctity of marriage?

* see "Getting Married" on her site

Comments

KarmaGirl

on Feb 18, 2004

Ah, but you are confusing "wedding" with "marriage". I big fancy wedding does not mean that you will have a great marriage, nor does a drive through wedding mean that your marriage will fail.

Forget the wedding- pay attention to the marriage. I'm happily married. It wouldn't have mattered if all we had to do was sign a piece of paper to declare us married, the end result would be the same.

stevendedalus

on Feb 18, 2004

Agreed, but I'm judging the "wedding" as a reflection of intent. A cavalier drive thru signals a rather flippant manner in which to express intentions. No, frankly, I think "fancy weddings" a waste of people's time and money, but they usually come about because the bride, rightly or wrongly, wants the treasured moment to be remembered.

JillUser

on Feb 18, 2004

I agree with Kharmagirl. I had a very traditional wedding only because that is what we had both wanted. I don't think anyone's marriage is any more "flippant" because of the manner of the wedding. Some of the biggest weddings I have ever been to ended in divorce and some that had drive thrus have been happily married for many years. The intent either way is for a man and a woman to be legally bound to each other until death do they part. You can't judge intent by anything other than intent.

new-age nomad

on Feb 18, 2004

Weddings are crap. Elope!!!

Trinitie

KarmaGirl

on Feb 18, 2004

I wanted to elope to Vegas. My husband's family insisted that we have a traditional wedding. I plan on celebrating our 10th anniversary the right way - in Vegas..pink chapel and Elvis......

Some people just don't care about the whole ceremony. Or, they just want to do it their own way.

fugmulch

on Feb 18, 2004

Exclusively, the two individuals participating within it define a marriage. All the rest is window dressing.

A marriage is not a ceremony, it is not a piece of paper with your names on it, it is made up of what each brings into it, and what each individual contributes to it.

My spouse and I didn't have a church wedding, or receive the sacrament of marriage, does this change my commitment to my spouse? Is the fact that I did not have a priest run through the entire mantra make my marriage any less valuable, vital or moral? No it does not, although I am sure there are a few out there that would argue that it does. We bring our own values to the table and make what we will out of it.

Marriage is a diverse and varied institution. One cannot define it within a rigid context, just the same as you cannot define a human being within a rigid context, let alone two.

stevendedalus

on Feb 18, 2004

"A marriage is not a ceremony, it is not a piece of paper with your names on it, it is made up of what each brings into it, and what each individual contributes to it." This excellent advice it should be e-mailed to San Fran.

Okay, all you guys and gals, I surrender. But tell that to the multibillion dollar caterers of formal weddings.

fugmulch

on Feb 19, 2004

Damn, I sound pretty self-righteous there, don’t I?

I don’t know if you ever read my first little ditty in the blog world, it was a rather sarcastic look at the sanctity of marriage: http://fugmulch.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=4054

imajinit

on Feb 19, 2004

we're all hopping on here and telling our wedding stories, right? offering some personal reflection and perspective? here's another one...

I got married in the Italian Comune. That's Italy's version of the Justice of the Peace. There was still some flare to it, but not like a traditional wedding. That night we "consummated" our union. Which is to say that we @#$%ed for 15 minutes and went to sleep. Now i don't know about ya'll, but i've always thought that your honeymoon was s'posed to be a night of wild passionate love-making. Yeah right. that was the first sign that something was wrong. Over the next year, we had it less and less often. It got to the point where i had to lay a guilt trip just to get some. after 16 months i walked... We had the "traditional wedding" planned for the following July, but there was no way i was gonna marry this woman twice. Not after how miserable she made me after the first one.

so what's my point? marriage is about love, commitment, communication, fulfilling each other's needs, and having wild, passionate jungle monkey sex.

who cares where and how the "ceremony" is conducted?

Suspeckted

on Feb 19, 2004

Yeah I'm inclined to agree that marriage in and of itself is not all the things that many would tack on a list of values to. It really boils down to a sexual contract claiming property to each other, anything additional to that is what you put into it...which hopefully, is a lot more.

EMacy

on Feb 19, 2004

Indeed, imajinit.

I live with my partner for 10+ years.We are equally committed. However, buying a house together the bank requires a legal binding_so we had a contract drawn up, to insure each others interest in a mortgage, should one of us " walk"
I'm not a homsexual, but as you know in the Fair Land of Holland the gov't recognizes homosexuals and couples can marry/ share in pension schemes, have children etc. Seems a very reasonable request to let 2 people who are committed and in love ,presumably ,to want their union made legal in the eyes of the law.
Good illustration Stevend

Suspeckted

on Feb 19, 2004

If marriage is about wild passionate jungle monkey sex than I'm thinking I want to get married a lot sooner than thought. I mean I've been having jungle monkey sex, but it really hasn't been wild or passionate let alone a combination of both.

Draginol

on Feb 20, 2004

There is a basic axiom issue here: Let me use an analogy: The poor quality of today's oranges is starting to make some peopel feel it's time to refer to apples as oranges. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If gays want to come up with their own name (bring in some big time PR firm to come up with a cool name like Matrica or something) that's fine. Marriage is taken.

BulbousHead

on Feb 24, 2004

"Marriage" is taken because you said so? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

"Marriage" will mean whatever most people use it to mean, and the dictionaries and legislatures will have to follow suit. Should there ever come a time when speakers of English use "marriage" to refer to any two-person union, hetero or homo, then that is what marriage will be.

Anyway, I think a better indicator of the increasing non-sanctity of marriage is the staggering divorce rate.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!