“But it’s just a big party and a certificate, isn’t it?”
I’ve been engaged for three months, and this is one reaction I keep encountering.
Mostly, it’s a throwaway comment meant, I suppose, to pre-emptively defuse any bridezilla tendencies I may be secretly harbouring (because if I can think of my wedding as just “my 21st: part two”, they seem to think, I won’t morph into one of those mental brides who spends $25,000 on a giant “gypsy wedding” dress before suing everyone in sight over my wedding video.)
Sometimes, it’s coming from a different place, from people who genuinely don’t share the desire to publically pledge their commitment, or who quite feel secure and happy enough in their relationship without promising to stick around forever, thank you very much.
Some of them find the whole institution icky and outdated (and, to be fair, it did used to mean you belonged to your husband, hence the pretty legit Second Wave feminist backlash against it.) In fact, in my circle of politically progressive friends, rejecting the relevance of such a traditional norm is almost a badge of hip, subversive honour.
Whatever the motivation, it jars with me people bandy about the “just a party and a piece of paper” line. Because, basically, that sentiment downplays the fact that marriage is a Pretty Big Deal for me, and for a lot of other women.
Because, let’s face it – marriage is transformative. Not in some “my prince has come! I’m no longer a penniless and unfulfilled wretch of a woman and can finally start my life,” Disney-esque way. And not in a “we’ll never fight again now we’re married” way (nope. Debts, family squabbles and disagreements over whether to finish Breaking Bad or Girls first will still happen.)
Marriage does, however, signify some major changes to your identity, because it formally marks the transition from one life stage to another. That’s the factor absent from most parties- which, it’s widely understood, are more a chance to catch up with your friends, make jelly shots and bring out the novelty piñata (or is that just me?)
At my last birthday party, for example, I don’t recall making a lifelong commitment that I then signed into law.
I don’t believe that, at my last housewarming, I involved my family and closest friends in an age-old set of rituals that we’d planned 18 months prior.
I don’t remember turning up with one name to my last work Christmas drinks and leaving with someone else’s. (Actually, ahem, I’m keeping my name after marriage, but that’s not the point.)
I can’t remember, at my last backyard barbeque, making a public promise to consider the feelings and needs of another in every major decision I’ll ever make.
And at my uni break-up party I certainly didn’t relinquish, once and for all, my single identity and all it encompassed (that grotty-but-familiar sharehouse vibe; months overseas with girlfriends; terrible pick-up lines).
Nope, most parties don’t fundamentally alter your identity in that way.
It’s true that there are certain coming-of-age rituals that hold a similar significance in terms of marking a rite of passage: baby showers, quinceaneras, housewarmings, christenings and even 21sts are used to acknowledge and celebrate major life moments.
But then, it’s generally accepted that those events are to be respected; I wouldn’t go around telling my Jewish friends, for example, that their bar mitzvah was no big deal because it was only a party.
Nope, that would make me an a***hole.
So.
Whether or not you want marriage for yourself, if your friend’s getting married it’s probably kind of a big deal for her. You may not want the formal, traditional, old-school trappings of a wedding, and that’s just as legit a choice in my books. I genuinely respect that. But that doesn’t give you a carte blanche to deride everyone who does lust for an old-school, soppy, til-death-do-us-part type public pledge (unless they’re also using “tradition” to oppose marriage equality– in which case, deride away. But that’s a different post.)
In summary:
Nope, my getting married won’t give me an excuse for a bridezilla-type bridal meltdown. It won’t call for an outlay of $55,000, which is the totally freaky average wedding cost these days. And it certainly won’t justify smug, bad-taste engagement photo shoots or those horrendous “he put a ring on it”-type Facebook statuses.
But all that said? My wedding is not “just a party”.
(Doesn’t mean we can’t have jelly shots and a novelty piñata, though.)
Speaking of weddings, we’ve collected a few of our favourite – and a few more, ahem, unique – celebrity wedding dresses. Take a look:
Are you engaged? Do you think a wedding’s just a big party- or does that view trivialise marriage?
Top Comments
On a related note, I have noticed a big backlash against wedding ceremonies and receptions with a kind of holier-than-thou attitude where a person acts too humble to desire any of the aesthetics & entertaining components these events tend to include. It is beginning to feel like one must apologize for having any excitement over or enjoyment in planning or experiencing a wedding ceremony and/or reception. Somehow it makes you entitled or materialistic to want to celebrate and engage in a ritual to symbolize a significant transition in your life. The other extreme is then exalted - to make as little effort as possible in the event, perhaps less effort than you'd put into a weekend barbecue with friends or a vacation trip. This somehow makes your wedding more meaningful, to be treated as almost shameful to enjoy (?). I really don't grasp that anymore than I grasp those who spend a year's income on a wedding. It seems just as focused on the outer display, but instead takes an ascetic stance over an aesthetic one. Neither is truly spiritual, being overly concerned with materialistic elements, whether its in indulgence or denial of them. Neither focus on the significance of the event, but instead is ego-driven & focused on how it makes them look & feel, be it glamorous or humble or non-traditional.
As for what a wedding is....it is interesting that those dismissing it as just a piece of paper & a party feel they can define "marriage" anyway they want. To them marriage does not include a formal vow, but is only a feeling of commitment. In which case, why can't those who choose to have a wedding ceremony define it as they wish & hold that it is symbolic? A ceremony is a ritual with symbolic meaning, often spiritual meaning, and to reduce it to its literal components is missing the point. Symbolic rituals serve to communicate and deepen the significance and feelings associated with the event. This can serve to consciously and unconsciously affect our dynamic with the other people involved, as well as our personal relation to the purpose of the ritual. In this case, it is symbolic of a lifelong vow to another human being, perhaps in the eyes of one's God, and also in the eyes of friends, family and the larger community. While a person may feel they have made such a commitment without the ritual ceremony, that doesn't devalue the effect a formal vow has in the dynamic of the relationship. The effect is SPIRITUAL, not composed of paper or party decor. And if you want to scoff at this, then you have forgone any right to get angry when people consider your live-in arrangement to not have the same significance as a legal marriage.
I keep re-reading this article, as I want to get it. I honestly do. But the thing is I'm in a defacto relationship of 20 years, so I'm obviously coming from a different perspective.
To me a relationship is a commitment - marriage or no marriage. Legally a defacto relationship has the same groundings. Emotionally is does too. So to make it "official" is an extra extravagance done for show. It doesn't make your relationship more worthy than any one else's. And make no mistake it is a party - where the couple is the belle of the ball. But I guess if you need to have that piece of paper to make it feel legit, or you need that wedding passage to feel right, then by all means do so. I guess I just don't understand where the change of identity kicks in though.
Of course it makes your relationship more worthy when you're married. I was with my ex for 8 years, but we never got married, even though we adored each other. He got married within 18 months of us breaking up. Their relationship is therefore deeply significant, even though it was shorter, because they CHOSE to take the step to commit to each other for life, legally and emotionally, and declared it so, legally and emotionally, in front of their closest friends and family. Choosing to do that declares to the world your intentions and feelings, as opposed to just staying in a relationship.
I'm not for a second dissing your relationship. And I had a wonderful relationship with my ex, and am not trying to undermine it. But the fact is, we chose not to get married. There is therefore nothing to distinguish that relationship as being more special, deep or true than any other relationships I or he had, other than length. And some people stay in shitty relationships for years just out of habit, never intending to declare that person as their One.
Some people choose never to get married because it really means nothing to them. But for most people, there is a huge difference, because you're declaring THAT person THE person, above all the others you've been in a relationship with.
Thank you for your response Sam. If I understand correctly, until you declare your choice in front of others - it's potentially just a relationship of default? I guess my question is does a relationship really need to be defined as the best? As the one? Does it need to be declared to show that it's worthy of the deepest respect? That's part of what I don't get.
I do understand what you're saying about how some relationships can be just one of drift. But if it isn't - do you really need a marriage to set it apart? I don't see that it needs have to have an announcement to the world to make it significant. To choose to not marry and still be committed to your relationship should not lower its value in any way in comparison with other relationships.
The thing about marriage is that even with the declaration to the world, it doesn't mean you will try to preserve it's union any more or less than a non-married relationship. After a couple of years together you know you are committed, otherwise what is the point of being in a relationship at all?
No. A de facto relationship does not have the same legal footing. If you are married and you want out, guess whether it's easier or harder (and cheaper!) than if you are simply someone's live-in? It's a legally binding contract. You could call your bond agreement or work contract ''just a piece of paper'' but... it's not. You have chosen to not make a legal commitment to your partner for whatever reason, and that is fine, but the patronising ''what are you trying to prove, you just want to be belle of the ball'' thing doesn't wash. When a person marries - which you haven't and thus couldn't know - they become legally joined and it affords them rights and privileges that unmarried couples do not automatically have. Why do you think gay people want the right to marry? Is it for the pretty princess party, do you suppose? No. It's not.