Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Berketex bride

Well the good news is that feorag is here. The bad news is that she's getting married. I don't know what to say, I really don't...


11th Jul, 2002 07:23 (UTC)
Nice point, but since it's currently impossible not to invite the State, like the bad fairy at the christening, there's not much option.

sashajwolf and I are drawing up the invite list for our commitment ceremony at the moment, and the State is conspicuous by its absence from the list.
11th Jul, 2002 07:55 (UTC)
Yeah, but you're not getting *married*, are you (unless my understanding of the position is completely out of the ball park).
11th Jul, 2002 11:26 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but I do consider it to be a marriage even though it isn't legally binding :-)
11th Jul, 2002 23:52 (UTC)
Well, firstly, in the post of Paul's that you replied to, he was talking about state-sanctioned marriages and commitment ceremonies, so if you were narrowing the debate you should really have said so. Secondly, to an extent I do regard the ceremony Liz and I will be having as a marriage; this is precisely because I don't regard the state as having a legitimate interest in our partnership, so losing the state from the ceremony doesn't change it in any way that means a lot to me.

Similarly, I don't consider exclusivity to be relevant to our partnership, so losing that aspect doesn't matter to to. And if what we're doing is a 'marriage', but without a copule of bits that I didn't want anyway and won't miss, I don't have a problem still thinking of it as a 'marriage'.

However, I realise that 'marraige' is a very loaded term for a lot of people here, and many people use it to make precisely the distinctions I'm rejecting here, so I wouldn't dream of insisting that other people call it that. 'Commitment ceremony' describes it just as well, (which is nobbut vaguely; you'd still need the four page essay version to know what it actually means to us).
12th Jul, 2002 01:41 (UTC)
the_maenad: As far as I can tell, you can choose whether you want to be refuted by me or by David. Either you don't have to invite the state for it to be a marriage, in which case he's right, or you do, in which case I'm right. The difference isn't one of fact, but of terminology, and discussing which is right is about as meaningful as discussing whether submarines swim.