Saturday, December 24, 2005

This Marriage Stuff

Situational harmony is the empathis of wedded bliss, as it were. What one forgets is the focus of the conceptually permanent bond one is to be forging with their beloved; it's sought as a title, a bragging right, and a convenient means for rite of passage. I wish anyone seeking matrimonial formalities would just wait - just wait. Is there a real necessity, other than tax implications, to finalize the legality of one's partnership? It's a silently powerful killer of people's goals, dreams, ideals, and intentions for the future, when one is locked into a legal contract of sorts at too young an age. Certainly many couples find their dream partner at an early age and there is no question as to the veracity of the bond. In most other cases (i.e. the divorce rate) many find someone they can see as a feasible sidekick, and perhaps because of the need to escape ugly domestic situations, or to seek an atmosphere of apparent stability, the decision for wedlock is hatched and sealed.

I wince at the occasions when I sense a marriage being sealed for anything but pure destiny and spiritual harmony, a scenario that seems to emerge a fraction of the time in weddings. Divorce and anullment carry such a brutal stigma of shame and myopia, even in this era, many fear the retribution of carrying through with the proceedings, despite a loveless domestic setting. If divorce didn't carry such a societal stench of shame, many relationships would be freed of their self-imposed bonds, but yet again many more marriages might be hastily forged without regard for the shame of failure. Marriage, like puberty, old age, or death, was an institution brought forth by pagan sects and ripped off by most religions. It was an implied pact - to carry through raising offspring with a consistent mother and father. Not this bullshit of property separation, agreements, and licensure.

Marriage has dissolved into a status symbol - a title, nothing more. A "married" man has a license and likely a woman with the same last name. Marriage, boiled down, is in the heart, spirit, and intentions of the couple. This is where I tend to find much value in the supposedly anachronistic common law marriage legislation that still lingers in various jurisdictions. If people are together, living together, for 7, 8 or say 10 years, they're married by definition. Marriage licenses should be issued with a minimum amount of time that the couple has been together, with validation. People marrying after 3 months - that's a mockery of the institution. I've proclaimed that the concept is a poor one, but all along I realized it's poor because it has gained too much weight as a status. People say that marriage is horrible because half of them end in divorce. Why? Because people are fucking morons. If people respected this institution as much as, say, drinking poison, we'd all be better off. Half of all people die of drinking poison. Awwww. Bye bye dipshit. Natural selection didn't select you. That type of thing. They can rot in hell.

Is marriage bad? No. I always said it was, and I realized the opposite. People don't understand its true meaning, and use it, abuse it, or throw it around like the scum that have 8 kids with 8 mothers. The rite of matrimony should only be granted to a couple that has passed a comprehensive test, an IQ test, a psychological examination, and harsh screenings. It should be earned. A marriage license is far easier to attain than a driver's license. Think about that. Maybe just a day by day life with the one you love is the best step to take... titles like "wife" or "husband" have lost the value they once held, so why bother jumping the gun. Couples are couples, and relationships must always prevail in lifelong choices. You don't need to go through a silly ceremony to prove to your beloved that you are devoted. Just be devoted.

2 comments:

Xoinx said...

So you're saying that, if a girl gets knocked up by her boyfriend, and they've been shacking up only two years, they'd have to wait another six to eight years to legitimize the kid?

I'd prefer parenting licenses but for reasons that are pretty much identical to the ones you raise.

The Vapid Voice said...

Kids are never legitimized, they are by birth. If someone has a baby, the kid is fine, it's the mother/father that need to legitimize themselves. Kids are never illegitimate. There's no such justice in labelling a child as such. If two people create a child, and the child was not warranted, then the "parents" are illegitimate. So no, the parents must legitimize themselves, the child is a child. No person should ever bear children without a solid, historic basis in the parental relationship, and not without a stable view of this imminent family's future. So yes, I'm saying whatever you're saying, without the kid part. Go to bed now, your devil's advocate game is really looking sad now.