First time it was civil, but it was small and fun. I'd like a similar small and fun religious ceremony if there's ever a second time... The judge cried at the vows I read. it was icing on the cake!!!
My girlfriend and I will have lived together for 12 years as of next month and have three children together. She - and they - are the center of my universe. Yet the funny part is that when we started talking about marriage we found - to our mutual surprise - that it did nothing for us.
We love what we share. It is natural and beautiful and almost instinctive. Set against that, the idea of an expensive ring, a large ceremony and a permission slip from the state was artificial and contrived. It almost detracted from what my girlfriend and I have.
As I say, we were sort of almost surprised about the way we felt. We are actually otherwise pretty traditional and even attend church - although giving our living arrangements we do not partake of the sacraments of our church. (We are both Roman Catholic.)
It is hard to describe, but just being us, sort of doing what nature made us for, so to speak, gives what my girlfriend and I share such intensity and connection. To suddenly put all that falderal around it would make it seem tinny and brittle.
That said, we have never fully reconciled what we are doing with our religious views and if we were to get married - and if my girlfriend wanted it I would propose in a heartbeat - it would be a religious ceremony. Such ceremony has real meaning and value whereas a civil ceremony is basically nothing.
Marriage licenses are a dime a dozen. In fact, since the advent of "no fault" divorce, marriage is the one contract - legally it is a contract - that the government will no longer enforce. That even further diminishes its meaning.
Of course, if you have no religious views, then a church wedding is not just a show it is a fraud. Not sure that I would want to turn something that is supposed to mean so much into little more than a spectacle. Kind of a Hollywood production.
From a purely visual perspective, I can understand why a church wedding would be preferred. However, when you consider what it is supposed to be, having a church wedding just for the show would both insult the church and demean the marriage at its outset.
@musicbrain5 They hand out "marriage licenses" like candy. You pay the fee, sign the paperwork and - poof! - you are married.
Indeed, once upon a time, a marriage license was an enforceable contract. The party that broke it was subject to various penalties and the grounds for divorce were strict and narrow.
However, with the advent of "no-fault" divorce, the marriage contract is the only contract that the law will not enforce. Either party may break it for any reason and assets will be evenly divided and the marriage is dissolved.
In fact, in most states it is harder to get a driver's license. It confers a few tax and SS benefits, but that ends it. Easy to get, easy to dissolve, unenforceable in law. It just does not mean very much.
So real meaning and value is only applicable to a marriage if religion is involved and the ceremony was performed in a church? Now that the government and law is involved in all of it, the value is stripped away? Forgive me if I’m not driving at the right point here. What about couples of other religious faiths who have a ceremony according to their religion, but not in a church?
We could say that instead of marriage being a contract, it is an agreement between two people. I do think that some people nowadays are throwing away their marriages (and common law relationships) - the “agreement” - far too often (and easily), but I don’t think that should take anything away from couples who work on things and stick it out.
I won’t get into the details of my own marriage and wedding ceremony here. But I disagree that it has no value or meaning to us or the life we have been building together for the better part of a decade.
@musicbrain5 No. Real meaning would attach if there was some indication that society valued it.
Right now a marriage license is easy to get and easily dispensed with. The law reflects a societal ethos that further shows its dispensability.
As I say, it is mostly useful as a mechanism related to tax law and Social Security benefits. In this it is primarily treated by the law and by society as an economic transaction and little else.
See also the 50% divorce rate. Things easily obtained are not greatly valued and are easily dispensed with when they become inconvenient. That hardly suggests that the civil marriage is greatly valued.
Besides, as you may note, my girlfriend and I did NOT get married at all - civil or religious. Both have been diminished and we felt - admittedly somewhat eccentrically - that getting married diminished what we share. It made it somehow less.
You jumped the gun on the religious issue. That said, it is worth noting that marriages based on a common religious faith are 4 times more likely to succeed as those that are not. That is what the data shows and you may draw what conclusions you wish from it.
I couldn’t care less if society as a whole places value on my marriage (or anything that I do, for that matter). The only thing that matters is that we value it and that our families value it and place importance on it. Our cultures place value on it.
I don’t see where I jumped the gun on the religious aspect. However, who is to say that all of those successful marriages are actually good relationships? Staying married because of religious obligations or avoiding divorce because it might be taboo doesn’t mean anything if the people involved aren’t actually happy with each other. I’m not doubting that common religious views contribute to lengthy marriages, but we cannot say for certain that they’re all content. Just like we can’t say that every non-religious marriage isn’t successful, etc.
@musicbrain5 Well, it is nice that you do value it, but as a whole marriage as an institution is in decline and if a permission slip from the state is enough for you then good for you. Neither nor anyone else is asking you to think otherwise.
For my part, I was referring to my personal situation. Beyond that I was simply making a statement of fact. In that connection, I did not say that non-religious marriage was unsuccessful. What I DID say is that the statistics show that religious marriages tend to LAST LONGER than non-religious marriages.
That is a simple fact based in census and other data. If you choose to equate LAST LONGER with SUCCESSFUL in your mind, that is your business. I merely used the datapoint to illustrate that civil marriage appears to be less valued in the culture. After all, we do not toss away that which we value.
Look, I’m not denying that those things are facts that contribute to successful marriages. And yes, if your marriage is successful, it’s going to last longer. The same goes for all relationships. Anyways, I am either missing the point or we are not seeing things from the other’s point of view. I feel like we are going around in circles. We all have a tendency to look at things through our personal lens.
Marriage is in decline because today’s Western society now views it as okay to just move in together and call it a day. I’m not saying I have a problem with that, it’s just how it is. Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free and all that. I lived with my husband for some time before we got married. We wanted to take it to the next level, and the biggest perk is that it helped him with his immigration issues.
@musicbrain5 Well, actually you have me rather mystified. I am neither offended nor do I really care if you value a marriage license. Indeed, there is ample - and I mean a HUGE - amount of evidence that marriage is better for society.
So good for you and I don't object.
MY only point, in my initial response, was to say that for reasons that we even we are not totally sure why, the idea of marriage seemed to diminish the beauty of what we share. It surprised even us that we felt that way as we are actually, on balance, rather traditional. However, the idea did nothing for us.
Then you seemed to respond as if that was somehow an offense and I replied, in so many words, that a marriage license has, in any case, lost much of the social value that once attached to it, except to those who view it through a religious prism.
Please note, that does NOT mean that ALL think it has no more value, but increasingly the segment of the population that values it the most does so as a religious sacrament and not a legal document. It is both, but as the latter it is more and more given out without distinction or preparation and indeed the state will no longer enforce it if one or both parties seek to dissolve it.
That is the sum and substance of what I was saying.
A little bit of both. A good friend and a business partner of mine is an ordained Buddhist priest and he came over to my house and performed a "minimal ceremony" with just us and our three children present.
u 
Most Helpful Opinions