A thought for any woman who is contemplating getting married.

[jemelanson]

The following was a personal epiphany that I had about 18 months ago. I am sharing it here and I hope that any woman that is contemplating getting married or knows a woman that is contemplating marriage should consider about the marriage ceremony.

My point of view is shaded from the view point of the Church which I was active in up until 1999.

I was laying in ICU following a stroke and not being able to do much except think, I was contemplating the upcoming nuptials of my daughter. I was mentally going through the marriage service when all of my mental red flags and alarms went off and it was all I could do not to scream NO out loud. Mindful that I was laying in an ICU unit and it was the middle of the night I somehow did not think that it was a good idea. I had gotten to the point in the service where the minister asks who gives this woman to be married to this man?

Wrong!!!!!!!

I was not going to give my daughter away. She is NOT a possession and NO ONE holds a title to her.

Her choice I would welcome into our family as I hoped that his family would welcome her into theirs. This was not going to be a change of ownership of her. She is a fully Adult member of the human race and is not a possession to be sold, traded or given away. That hark-ens back to a period when women were possessions, chattel, and the marriage ceremony was a transfer of control of the Woman from her father, uncle, brother or whichever male had control of her to her husband. To a time when women could not own property, if they could find a job could not even receive their own pay, for it was given to her husband, father or which ever male relative had control of her. A woman could not bring suit in a court of law, because she had no standing in the court. She could not give sworn testimony unless her Male keeper vouched for her word. She could not even claim her own children. Education was denied to Women. Woman had NO Rights. A woman without a male protector had no right to any kind of protection. She could not sign a contract, have a bank account or inherit property or money. Women were at the total mercy of a system that was rigged to keep her penniless and without any rights. The ministers preached from the pulpits that a husband should control his wife my any means necessary, however they should not use a rod bigger in diameter than their thumb. A woman was not allowed to refuse sex with her husband, and should she have a miscarriage due to the abuse of her husband that was also her fault. Do we really want to bring any thing that comes from that time forward and lay it upon our daughters or granddaughters or any woman for that matter.

So if you are contemplating marriage or know a woman who is think about this and pass it along.


This question WAS NOT ASKED AT MY DAUGHTERS WEDDING.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. As of interest, the part where they say "to have and to hold" . . . .

Those are antiquated contract terms denoting conveyance of ownership.

I find the concept of ownership as a result of and within a marriage to be abhorrent.

[DesertFlower]

2. the wording needs to be changed.

things were different back in my mother's time. she would be 87 if she was still with us. many unmarried women did not work. they were supported by their father's until they got married.

[peacebird]

3. we omitted the "giving away" bit and the "obey" also....

[wryter2000]

5. I told my husband in no uncertain terms

That I was not going to obey him. That went out very easily, as did a few other things, and we still had a lovely service left. The minister who married us was fine with all the changes.

[barbtries]

4. i wouldn't mind it

as long as there was a corresponding ritual for the husband-to-be. the part in the wedding ceremony that always distracts and infuriates me - doesn't happen all the time - is the "i now pronounce you man and wife." HE gets to still be human, SHE gets to be "wife." HUSBAND and wife!

[uncommon]

18. She was never considered human to begin with. nt

[LiberalFighter]

6. 2 questions

Is that part of the service normally performed by that minister?

Was the minister requested not to include that part of the service?

[Warpy]

7. The whole antiquated thing chaps my ass

Fortunately, the slightly tipsy UU minister realized he had a tiger in his office, so we got the hippie special and only promised to give each other enough space to grow.

Which we did 18 years later when we got divorced.

[Sal Minella]

9. Ha! What a great post!!! nt

[HockeyMom]

8. People ignore these "vows"

I did almost 40 years ago and I am sure my very much liberated daughter did also at her wedding last year. PEOPLE make the marriage, not the words issued. As they say in law, if a law is ignored by the majority of the public (witness Prohibition), it is bad law and unenforceable.

[MountainLaurel]

10. Just had a conversation with online friends about this

About men asking their bride's fathers for permission to marry them, which personally squicks me out. Of the group (about 30 people, mainly women with graduate educations, the only ones whose fathers were asked for their blessing or who were "given away" at their ceremonies were those who got married in their early to mid 20s.

As for Mr. Laurel, we were married halfway around the planet by a secular celebrant, so there was no giving away. Also, in our vows, we made a deliberate choice to use the phrase "I give myself" rather than "I take you."

[Shallah Kali]

11. Here is an article that chose to walk down the aisle together

A Break With Tradition -- 'I Chose Not to Have My Dad Give Me Away'
http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/04/29/wedding-trend-my-dad-didn-t-give-me-away

If I ever get married I definitely will be leaving out the obey nonsense and other remnants of women as property crap.

[Tumbulu]

12. I am just flat out against marriage period

for anyone, straight, gay....I think it is too fraught with ownership issues among many things. If people want to own things together, then go to a lawyer and write up proper partnership agreements, etc,

[One_Life_To_Give]

13. Depending on chuch/minister thats all negotiable

Been 19.5 years since the wife and I were married. So I can't say I remember all of the details. But I do recall we were specifically introduced as First name and first name xxxxxxxx, Husband and Wife. Just so that DW was a person too. The vows IIRC were reciprical, If I own her, then she equally owns me. (So why is it the Bill's are in my name and the Titles are in hers?)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. The "give away" part has not been in the Episcopal service since 1982

The current ceremony is egalitarian. The man and woman say exactly the same vows to each other.

[Iris]

16. when I was married in the Catholic church 15 years ago, the priest told us this was not part of a

traditional Catholic service. It was more a protestant thing. We didn't have it in our services.f

Sadly, the church has disappointed us is so many other ways, this is small comfort.

[chillspike]

15. Beautifully thought out

I'm a guy but if I ever marry I will not allow that archaic language to be used at the ceremony. Very astute observation.

[JustAnotherGen]

17. Not just daughters - but sons also

Get acquainted with Bella DePaulo - she wrote singled out, and writes a blog on Singles issues at Psychology today. ;-) The matrimania and mommy bloggers in this country is well? Disgusting.


Also look up the money the Fed Govt (Obama talking about extending) has spent on classes about 'how to be married'. The amount spent on two peoples' bad decisions is astounding.

[niyad]

19. and let us not forget that there is a third party in this contract--the two people marrying, and the

STATE. I don't know if it happens so much now, but I remember years ago when couples seeking a divorce, for example, could be refused by the judge.

or, in the incredibly whacked-out brain of one of our local pols--the brilliant idea to force couples into counseling before ALLOWING them to divorce (and, if they have children, generally not allowing it)

or, as I heard recently, some twit in (CA, I think) who wanted to make it illegal to get a divorce.

we haven't really come all that far from the english common law view that "the husband and wife are one under the law-- AND THAT ONE IS THE HUSBAND"

"marriage is a great institution, but who wants to live in an institution?"

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lukasahero]

22. Wow - you write that all by yourself

or did someone have to spell the words for you?

:eyes:

[musette_sf]

23. DAMN I missed it!!!

[lukasahero]

25. It was classic!

All about how women are to blame for everything in this failing experiment we call America and how we should be back in the kitchen taking care of our men - footwear is optional.

:rofl:

Guy only had 1 post but I don't remember the name to see if he's been well and truly TS'd.

:hi:

[seabeyond]

28. we laugh but the thing i have found last couple weeks on cnn board is such hate, real hate for women

from so many men. comments about the "princess" spoiled american woman. the militant woman. go to another country to find a woman. women have destroyed all of who we are the world, this nation. as they then tear women apart in crude and vulgar manner. i have been ponering this the last couple weeks. i did not know this was going on to this extreme. i knew it was bad, listening to men on du, but not this extreme. we are using all this as lessons in my house to educate my boys about the sickness that males seem to be having with female gender.

i really think there is much more in this and does not behoove any of us. i do not think it is the lone poster with one post. a movement. and women are all evil.

[lukasahero]

29. I've been on this board for over 7 years

It's always been this bad. In fact, it's been way worse. At least this idiot's post got deleted. The person who's post was deleted had 1 post on DU. I don't remember the name or I'd go see if he was banned - I suspect he was.

So yeah, I'll laugh at his impotent threats to 'contain' us.

[musette_sf]

31. + 1

[musette_sf]

30. + 1

[Liberal Left]

24. One in four men is a wife beater

They pretend to be devoted followers of their future victim until they have her trapped - usually after the birth of the first child. I'm just escaping an extremely abusive situation and my abuser seems to have all the rights - in spite of the five year restraining order I have against him.

[lukasahero]

26. "One in four men is a wife beater"

I'm sorry for your situation but do you have any statistics to back up this claim? I also come from an abusive background but in my 47 years, I met 1 abusive man and hundreds that weren't.

I'm glad you have managed to escape. Be safe.

[musette_sf]

27. Because family court judges

have a theory that just because the man abuses the wife, if there's no "proof" that he abused the children also, then he gets to keep his parental rights.

And if the woman presents her proof that he DID abuse the children, then this decimates HER credibility, because she "didn't protect her children" adequately.

Of course I don't need to go through the "why doesn't she just LEAVE??" tortured logic with you, based on your story. You understand how you get trapped, coerced, etc etc etc.

Just a big bowl of Blame The Victim, which goes on every day in Family Court.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[musette_sf]

33. whoa, sorry I missed the DBDB

(Drive By D-Bag) who came for a short visit.