Some time ago, I stated that I'd offer an explanation for why me and Kenyatta aren't married. A few weeks ago, when the Prop 8 stuff hit, my Pops called to laugh at me. He was laughing at the irony that I, a dude who would not marry, could be so adamant about gay marriage. As I'll explain in a second, I don't see much of a contradiction. Then this morning, I happened to be hanging out over at Postbougie and saw this Cynthia Tucker piece arguing that Barack and Michelle will somehow improve the marriage rates in the black community. You guys know what I think of these Barack the Magic Negro arguments. Still, the constant harping on the marriage rates in the black community, and the brandishing of that shockingly dubious 70 percent stat (70 percent of black babies born out of wedlock) always gets me going. So you're in luck fellow travelers. Today's the day you get to read what makes Kenyatta and Ta-Nehisi tick.
I met Kenyatta twelve years ago on the yard of Howard University. I was walking with another girl (not my girl!) and she was standing out there in jeans, her hair wrapped in African fabric. Over the next couple years we got to know each other pretty well, but seriously, at that moment, right there, I was undone. We were good friends for like two years after that, and then we started dating. She was, in a word, perfect. Where would you find a black woman loved the Gza as much as Fitzgerald? Who could move from Paula Giddings's latest to Seinfeld jokes?
Anyway, I think we must have been together for about a year when she got pregnant. It helps here to know a little bit about me. I came up in a time of chronic absentee fatherism. I also come from a family of seven, by four women and one father. As I say in my memoir, I've got brothers born to best friends, brothers born in the same year. Still, in my house, and in the minds of all my dad's children, fatherhood was a sainted calling. Particularly in my mind, it marked the barrier between boy and man. That isn't fair, but I'm only speaking to my state of mind. In the late '80s, the community was going to seed, and I think a lot of us felt like black men had abandoned their posts, had just threw up their hands and said "Fuck it. Crack. AIDS. Saturday Night Specials. Kids dying over Jordans. Whatever. We're out."
[MORE]
Again, that isn't fair--it's a statement about my own emotional
reality, not my intellectual one. This is how it felt, for me, coming
out of that era. I saw Kenyatta's pregnancy in the most romantic
possible light, the way people who are military legacies see war. Here
I was, a young man, and all my friends were getting high, chasing girls, and
getting drunk, but I could make my life about something. I could go out
there and turn a black child into a productive member of the community.
It was my time to go to war. I was out of my fucking mind, no doubt.
But damn, was I excited. Let us not get too angelic here. Me and Kenyatta
huddled over the course of a week about what to do. Samori was not
planned, and for whatever reason, I don't see any disgrace in that.
Anyway, in the end, we decided to go for ours.
As soon as we
started telling people, the first question we got was, "Are you getting
married?" Now, if you talk to Kenyatta, she has been a feminist since the day
she learned to read, and she never put much of a premium on marriage.
Still, up until then, neither of us were opposed to the idea. We just
didn't think we needed it. But the constant questioning put us in a
place where we were able to ask why. Why did people think we should get
married? What did that have to do with pregnancy? We both knew we were
committed to the life of the child. But we did we think about each
other? Truthfully, I don't think we thought much past the child. We'd
been friends for two years before we started dating. I knew Kenyatta
would be a great mother. I knew we wanted the same things for our
kid. What else was there?
Well, a lot, actually. The marriage convo brought out quite a bit. As
much as I can recall, there were basically three reasons for us to get
married. 1.) I might leave. Marriage would force me to do the right
thing. 2.) To declare our commitment to each other before a community
of people whom we loved. 3.) The business reasons--the legalities of
your estate and guardianship. I found--and still find--the first two reasons were utterly unconvincing. The third held some sway, but with the help of a lawyer we've managed to take care of that. The first turned marriage into a kind of insurance policy, and I just believed that if you felt you needed insurance for the person you were having kids by to stick out, you needed to reconsider the whole proposition. The commitment and community reason held some appeal. But I believed, and still believe, that long-term romantic partnerships are between the two people entering into it.
I hated the idea of public declarations, because the life blood of the relationship--what bills to pay, how to raise your child, your love life--all of that happened when no one else was around. Kenyatta knows more about me than any human being walking the earth--and this is as it should be. No one knows more about my strengths and my weaknesses, my failings and my successes. I trust her to the end. But that trust was worked for--it was not declared or conjured by the presence of other people. From the moment I met her, Kenyatta believed I could be a successful writer. For years after we hooked up, she was the breadwinner. When I got laid off from TIME, she said "Just keep writing," not "Negro, you gots to get a job." I was humbled by that, and humbled even more that she had more faith than me, and that--thus far--she was right.
That gets at the essential truth for me--a relationship couldn't be about talking to other people. It couldn't be about telling other people what I was gonna do; it had to be about the actual work. From that perspective, a wedding was abominable to me. It was the antithesis of everything I wanted--a vain spectacle of love, when love is to be demonstrated, it is to be done, it is to be worked like a job. Was it Andrew who said religion is what you do when no one is looking? That was what we wanted out of our relationship. To always be about our business when no one was looking, and then when people were looking they would see the truth.
This really has nothing to do with me being black. It's the belief I've come to after years of conversations with Kenyatta. We revisit this every couple of years and always come away with the same conclusion--if our lives are the thing, if we live what we rep for, what is the point of symbolism? Still, I get annoyed when I see people blaming the fate of black kids on the absence of marriage. The whole "marriage as a solution" thing strikes me as correlation subbed for causation. To create more fathers, who do their job because of a state-enforced contract, seems not to probe deep enough. Isn't there a deeper question about fatherhood itself? About what makes a man literally walk away from his last testament to the world? Do we really want to create fathers in contract only?
All of that said, I'm completely on board with gay marriage, mostly because of the exact reasons I've laid out against marriage. Relationships are private, and I don't like the idea of the state telling two people what they can call their relationship and how they can live their lives. Me and Kenyatta chose not to marry. We had the right and chose against it. I think the choice part is most important. Everyone deserves that.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Beautiful. Yes. Thank you.
Choice is so simple but it is nonetheless monumental. My wife and I chose to get married to celebrate in the presence of family and friends, and to give them the chance they desired to celebrate us. I'm happy we did it. But it has nothing to do with our true commitment to each other.
No one should be barred from it or forced into marrying, or elevated or denigrated because of the choice they make.
And you're right: if the contract is needed to force one party to stick around, the whole thing should be reconsidered.
Great post. Just wondering: do you consider yourself common-law married?
I'm glad you wrote this post. Being nosy, like I am, I was kind of curious about why you and Kenyatta decided not to marry.
But from all intents and purposes (to the emotional, to the financial) it sounds as if you are married. It sounded as if you think that marriages are a false proclamation of commitment, but yet, you let everyne know that you are in a committed relationship.
I think that a lot of people were turned off from the marriage, by the drama they saw their elders and other 'married' adults going through. So they decided not to use the word, if even though they follow similar actions usually associated with marriage.
The whole "marriage as a solution" thing strikes me as correlation subbed for causation.
You're right, but marriage is shorthand here for "deciding that a child will be raised by two people, and they will be there for the child and each other, even in all the little day to day things." That last bit--I'm at the end of my rope, so I hand the kids off to their dad for a couple of hours--is what's missing with people who are "there" as in available and committed, but not "there" as in right there in the house to pick things up at the moment.
Now, marriages end. It's obviously not a perfect solution, and the divorce rate amongst heterosexuals is one of the best "come on, get real" arguments against those who claim they are defending marriage, especially Newt Gingrich.
And there are some couples like you and Kenyatta who stay together and raise the kid, and are thus married in all the senses of "there, all the time, to be depended on as parent and as partner." But I think if you looked around the incoming college class and asked "Raise your hand if your original parents, the people who were raising you when you were a baby, are still together and you go home to your family home on break," and then said "Keep the hand up if your parents are not married to each other," you wouldn't have many hands still up. And yet if you're at a top school, the number of hands that went up on "parents still together" would be around 90%, versus around 50% of the population at large.
So I'd argue that by the shorthand of "people should marry to raise children"--sure, for some people, and all those opposing gay marriage, it's only marriage if it's marriage. But a lot of people are using "people should marry to raise children" as a shorthand for "a couple who stays together and raises the kid as a team and are each other's supportive partners." So to me you've rejected the legal detail of marriage--the outward to society part--in favor of the social compact at its heart, raising children together and being long-term supportive partners, in good times and bad, which is what a lot of gay couples had before marriage was allowed to them.
You guys know what I think of these Barack the Magic Negro arguments.
But what if he gets all the youth to pull up their pants? Wouldn't it be worth it?
Awesome post, TNC. I don't have a thing to add, but I wanted to give you some applause.
Well said, but, I would think, limited.
Now, of course, you are going to do what you need to do. And you are doing great, as far as I can tell.
Still, everything above, all the reasons given, are about the two of you - nothing about the greater community, nothing about how the mesh and fabric of your two lives, fit, yes, into the "public declarations" that include everyone else.
Surely, yes, you have the right of it. What happens in you, with your partner and your son, take precedence over any public declaration.
But still - WHY NOT??
1. It would take nothing away from your concept of what a relationship is.
2. It would be easier for your son, your parents, your greater community.
I'm just not sure what purpose the statement of not marrying serves. Basically, you call "fake" on the vast majority of marriages out there - you've made a value judgement for yourself, that such a "public statement" would be fake. And your influence on others to think such a thing?
The other side though, is that such a "public statement" can be taken as sacrament.
Now, having said that, perhaps your statement, such as it is, is to rebel against the "we must marry or it isn't real". And SOMEONE needs to stand for that, as it isn't a popular position.
At any rate - you are doing right by your partner and your boy - the rest is icing on the already tasty cake.
Because of how sectioned off our society is, (people move away from home, don't really have an extended family network,etc) the permanency of a two-person couple for the stabilty and health becomes disproportionately important.
'Marriage' use to carry more weight when people assumed that you really were going to spend your life with someone. And I do agree, that except for a very reasons, most people should stay with the person that they are married to.
The question becomes if 'marriage' with its pomp circumstance and promises before God and family aren't enough to bind people together. Is a private promise between two individuals enough?
I don't think it's extreme to say it's the same as a person who would never go through with an abortion fighting for the right to choose.
I really relate to what you say about "marriage as a solution" to absent fathers being a flawed argument. My mother and father divorced because my mother saw that my father was not going to be emotionally present for us, only superficially in the house. He was not going to be the involved and present father counterpart to how involved and present a mother she proved to be. So she was sort of like, "Well, screw that artifice." This with having been together for four years, married for two years, and planning the birth of their children. She saw that no level of legal commitment was going to make him the kind of dad she wanted him to be.
My grandfather Anderson used to say that if a man shares your name and you are proud of him, then he is your cousin. In the mountains of Appalachia, this was not a far-fetched notion - the person could actually be your cousin. Down here in the flat-lands, it's a bit more tenuous, but my grandfather was a wise man, so let me say it:
Cousin, I am proud of you and what you have accomplished. Keep on doing as you are doing. This piece is extremely moving and I will share it with my friends.
Roderick Coates
Washington, DC
i am back here just in time for your big marriage post. thanks! i love it!
regarding JC's question, "But still - WHY NOT??": maybe WHY NOT is just because everyone thinks you should. my story is the inverse of yours. i was with my now-wife before MassEquality (the powerhouse gay-marriage lobbying org here in boston) was a gleam in Marc Solomon's eye, back when i would refer to someone's same-sex partner as "wife" or "husband" just out of courtesy and the recognition that they were committed. then, very suddenly, i couldn't do that anymore, because those words had a new legal meaning for me. at that point i was in your position--i needed to choose actively whether or not to be married. and the thing that made me do it in the end was everybody saying i shouldn't. why the freakin' heck did they even care? if it was that important to people that i not marry, by george i was gonna do it.
I think all of your reasons for not getting married are very reasonable, but I think you missed something when children become involved.
I think it's easier for kids if their parents are married. Truth is, we live in a world where having unmarried parents is looked upon as a bit out there, so the world is going to let your kid know that in subtle and no-so-subtle ways, and that's not a good thing for the kid.
I want to highlight that this is only one factor in your marriage decision, and it does not negate all of the good parenting that you do, but to ignore it as ONE factor to consider is being a bit naive/delusional about how the world is and how that will affect your child.
I've always been closer to your general position that what you do in your relationship is what matters most (not the label you put on it), but when it comes to kids, I think you need to factor in some other things that go against your normal leanings. For example, I think religion is an opiate for dumb masses who don't want to think things through, but have no trouble when my baby letting my 6 year old believe in heaven, because my anti-religion philosophy is less important than the discomfort/fear that would be caused if she knew that heaven is a load of malarky. She will figure it out for herself at some later time when she can handle it.
I'd go to the streets to protect your right to not marry. I agree that choice is essential.
However, there's an aspect here that I don't think you've considered about why to get married and why not to get married. In a relationship there is person A, person B, and then there's the relationship itself. Folks in the world of studying relationships call the relationship a "third entity". I think marriage ceremonies and all the stuff that goes with it is, in the best circumstances, all for the sake of this this third entity, for the something more that gets created when two people are in relationship with one another. Marriage recognizes and acknowledges this intangible. For me that's the point of marriage.
Granted this can be done without marriage. It can be done as you are doing by talking about your commitment to one another. I just care about being conscious of the existence of relationship as its own entity.
I think as humans we get something more out of life when we have these great healthy relationships. Some folks like me feel like marriage and the cultural rites around it helps to tend that relationship. Others like yourself don't need that so much. But all of our relationships need some form of tending to.
We agree that everyone needs to decide for themselves what that tending to needs to be.
I am jealous of you. But my girlfriend wants to get married.
Even steven, who will know whether they are married or not, or particularly care enough to find out?
This was my realization with gay marriage: Previously I assumed all opposite-sex parents of my kids' friends who cohabited were married, and all same-sex parents were not married. When gay marriage became legal in MA, I no longer knew if the same-sex couples were married or not--but really, I acknowledged, this had always been true of the opposite-sex couples, as well. The couples are social partners whether there exist wedding photos from 15 years ago or not.
As far as people finding out, you have to agree that it will happen sometimes. Consider this exchange between 6 year olds (Jill has unmarried parents, jack has married parents).
Jack: Wait, you're parents aren't married? That's wierd.
Jill: No, it's actually pretty cool for all these really complicated reasons that I cannot begin to understand.
Jack: Are you worried they will break up because they aren't married?
Jill: I don't know, maybe I should worry...
And this is the benign version.
I don't quite understand the logic of not marrying because the 'public declarations will diminish our love' -- if you really don't care what people think, then you could go either way. But it does matter , at least a little , to kids, which is why I would favor marriage even if it means nothing to you.
You may find, if the worst happens, that your "contracts" aren't terribly pertinent.
At least, that's been the experience of many gay couples with custody issues or inheritance issues who have copious paper to back up their relationship but not that ever important "certificate" to make it in the eyes of the gov'ment.
I love how everyone is passing judgement here against TNC. How do you know how his son feels about it? Why should TNC care about what other people's kids think?
He describes his family as being happy. Isn't that what matters?
He opens up to everyone and half of the commentators lecture him like he is a child. Ugh, TNC keeps doing what you are doing, sounds like you have something really special.
"She was, in a word, perfect. Where would you find a black woman loved the Gza as much as Fitzgerald? Who could move from Paula Giddings's latest to Seinfeld jokes?"
I know that woman . . . she's called my wife. In all seriousness, I am not a firm believer in marriage, as understood. I am a firm believer in commitment. I am a firm believer in relationships that mutually enhance and make each person a better person. My wife and I were married because ultimately it was important to her and she was (is) important to me. But what is ultimately important to me is being with my deepest friend. I appreciate your position and completely agree with it. I wish more people understood that true "marriage" isn't about a ritual or ceremony but is about what the ritual and ceremony represent.
I am leery of telling anyone they should get married, I can't think in their mind and know what is best for them. Marriage also changes people's expectations, and sometimes for the worse. So it is possible that some relationships would be more stable without having a marriage hanging over it.
One of the arguements for gay marriage is that it stabilizes gay couples, I would take it from your view of marriage in the black community that you don't buy this line of thinking. I don't think it is relevent, rights don't have to benefit society. As a divorced father of two girls, I really don't know if the marriage contract kept me around for as long as it did, or if it was that we stayed together until we couldn't stand it any longer.
The first turned marriage into a kind of insurance policy, and I just believed that if you felt you needed insurance for the person you were having kids by to stick out, you needed to reconsider the whole proposition.
Ye gods, this is my "favorite" argument in the Great Debate over the importance of marriage. The theory that a woman is vulnerable in a relationship unless she gets married because the guy might leave--what does this say about romance dynamics and gender relations in our society? If men are so unreliable that they'll run off at a moment's notice simply because they're not legally bound, then why are women actively encouraged to pledge their lives to these guys? My take on this is, if you can't trust a guy to stick around, you really shouldn't marry him, even if there's a kid on the way. If a man wants to walk out on his family, he'll do it, with or without a ring on his finger.
Also, I totally get what you're saying about how your right NOT to marry is compatible with same-sex couples' right TO marry. The most (and so far, only) coherent argument I've heard for why same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage is that if you look at countries with legalized same-sex marriage, you see lower marriage rates, later marriage, and more kids born to unmarried parents. This is a matter of correlation, not causation. The trends of later and less-likely marriage for heterosexuals were prevalent well before those countries legalized marriage for same-sex couple. These are simply cultures that give their people the liberty to choose to get married--or not--on their own terms.
I think this is pretty typical among geeks of our generation. I have fairly similar attitude: our marriage is tangental at best to our relationship. It was an ordeal to be gone through for both of us, for the benefit of others. A relationship is between two people, a marriage is between a couple on one side, and society on the other. For people who say bugger society, I can't argue. There are good and bad things about telling society 'from now on, treat us as a unit'. It's a somewhat seperate decision from committing to each other for life.
Wow, that might have been your best post ever.
Fuck what people have to say about your "arrangement". Do you.
This is very interesting and forces me to re-examine my own thoughts about marriage. I was raised to believe, and continue to believe, in its sanctity, even though my own parents' marriage is far from what I'd want, and it informs my support of gay marriage (stability and all that, in addition to plain old rights).
I guess I continue to support marriage because of my own romantic attachment to that sort of commitment with a woman, the beautiful thing which you appear to have, which I always assumed ought to be formalized. Why have I always assumed that? Yes, that's simply how it's done among respectable people where I'm from, but.. I guess marriage is a community thing. I certainly can respect your choice not to get married, especially as you've explained it here, but it is a formalization of that commitment, and thus a sort of additional commitment in itself, going all-in.
(I'd probably have to marry an axe-murderer before I considered divorce, again the way I was raised. My folks probably should have gotten divorced, and this is debatable (and off-topic) but I think we kids benefited hugely from their choosing not to do so. That is of course extremely anecdotal and contingent.)
Anyway, thank you for sharing, and for being thought-provoking as always.
Great post. This is why I read you.
I would say that there is actually a reason #4, but that it wouldn't make sense to you.
#4) It's different than being single. That is about as close as I can explain it to you. It's a completely different mind set on the other side of the reception, my friend.
My wife and I lived together, planned together, bought a house together, before we were married. Intellectually, it was the same as being married.
Emotionally, it is completely different. The firm demarcation between yesterday we were single and today we are married is a bright line that no amount of discussion and planning can provide.
I can't tell you what that's like, but everyone who has been married can, even if they got a divorce later.
Even Steven,
You'd be surprised how little actually being married means in the greater community, when you're demonstratively committed to being a two-parent household raising a child. In fact, when I rush to correct someone who uses the title "husband" and wife" to explain, "Oh, we're not married, we've been together for 10 years but we decided not to," 99 percent of the time people reply, "Oh, well, you're married" and use the terms anyway. The one percent who insist on the ceremony and ring are usually pretty religious or pretty old-school.
As for the kids of this type of union, I live in New York City, so it might be my location, but there are all sorts of families here; my son has a Colombian friend who was adopted by a white single mother, friends with same-sex parents (who can attest to the trials of banning gay marriage, especially as parents), biracial friends, etc. He understands that families come in different packages, so it's not an issue.
Hmm, I wager that she’d light up like the sun if you proposed. I’m sure she’s smart enough to go along with your cold feet - which is the best I can surmise from the gaping unanswered question you leave us with, i.e., WHY NOT!?
I’m black and my folks stayed married throughout the insanity of raising a large, military family before during and after the civil rights era. I think they and we benefited from their stick to it commitment that was cemented by those fearsome words: “I (gulp) do” in front of EVERYONE. Yes, those fearsome two words that in my 45 years on earth represented the only time that my legs quivered and jelled like overcooked pasta.
The power of those words and symbols gave my folks the faith and community resources to keep it all together. Those vows reminded them that times will be bad and good and that they had others to help them through the idiocy of our youth: from near death motorcycle accidents to back stabbing jealous ex boyfriends to crazy encounters with rattlesnakes and all of the rest. The ritual is the power.
In less biological terms (for those contemptuous of us “breeders”), I suppose the best way to look at it is why bother with inauguration? Sure we’ve worked hard as hell to bond Barack’s vision to America’s future but why bother? Why? Because it’s a wonderful thing to us, too.
Just wanted to chime in and say I understand your point of view. My girlfriend and I have lived together for 6+ years and often get the marriage question. We don't have kids and don't plan on having kids so number one on your reasons to get married isn't true for us. But we have often considered marriage... and you know what I've discovered? It just isn't a high priority for us. We could get married, but we love each other regardless, share a mortgage together, and share the responsibilities in our relationship. If we got married it would be for family and friends and because we would want to get together and have a big party. Which sounds like a good idea, and we still might someday, but it would be for the shared camaraderie and not for anything bigger than that.
We already have the important stuff.
There's another reason to get married: religion. Neither you nor anyone commenting has mentioned that, which presumably reflects the secular mind-set. But it is an obstacle to communication with those who are religious.
One more thing ...
I used of the term "girlfriend" for someone I've lived with and loved for 6+ years, which sounds very strange, but there really isn't a great word for the situation. "Significant other" sounds strange.
We like to refer to each other as "spousal equivalents" :)
It sounds as if you have a close, loving, and committed relationship which is a rare and wonderful thing. However, in my professional life I work with lots of children from many backgrounds and family homelives--good as well as very damaging ones. At the end of the day if you ask the children if they would like or would have liked their parents to be married,they would invariably say yes--children are conservative and I think that they believe the marital status says something about them. I just wonder how your child would vote on your marriage question, if he/she got one and felt free to be honest?
Just to expand on that point about community - marriage (the wedding too) is such a huge part of our culture (Indian), which is super family-centric - for the old school LIFE is about family first, last, and always, nothing else really enters into the equation, work and religion and culture and community and identity are all completely inextricable from the core of family, nuclear and extended. (e.g. there's a saying in Hindi/Sanskrit that goes, "Mother, Father, Guru, God", namely, the order in which one worships, and life itself is supposed to be a ritual or celebration in worship.) Any perceived diminution of the role of family in one's life is harshly criticized in our culture and even more so tradition-wise. It's essentially a conservative viewpoint, I guess.
It makes sense in that context to formalize, guarantee, and publicly celebrate family-making via marriage, and in other cultures where the nexus of tradition+family+marriage is that culturally significant and central, it makes sense as well. But again that's just me, and I agree that having that choice is of paramount importance here. You seem to have made the right choice based on your circumstances and I applaud that maturity on the part of you and your woman. But one thing, though, Coates - aren't you missing out on the tax breaks and such? You gotta get every bit of your money back from the government, man! ;-)
-sv
TNC,
Your story, except for the kid part, could be my story. Amy and I have been together now for eight years and are trying to have kids, and we've talked about getting married from time to time, but we've always come back to the attitude that we'll do it if there's some external requirement that we do it, i.e. if we ever decided to emigrate to another country or took jobs overseas, that sort of thing.
Amy puts it this way. A marriage license says "you have to stay together, and this binds you," and if you want to leave, there's a whole lot of hassle and expense involved. She and I prefer to wake up each morning and think "I choose you and choose to stay here." Her parents call us the most married couple they know, as a matter of fact.
Besides, we own two cats together. How much more tied together can you get?
A very interesting post. And it seems you have already made your non-marriage work better than most (including unfortunately my own).
What is interesting to me though is the relationship between your story and the 70% stat, or more likely more the lack of relationship. On one rare occassion when I had the USAToday (probably staying in a hotel) they had a debate on bilingual education. The anti-argument was bad. The pro argument was a defense of the proposition that it is nice for smart students to be able to speak a second language. And, while it is nice for smart students to be able to speak a second language, that really has nothing to do with the problem motivating the bilingual language debate.
To make the analogy to this case explicit, if the 70% of black children born out of wedlock were primarily of the case described above, then it would not be a problem. But it seems that the numbers that produce the 70% is so high because of too many fathers not active in raising their children (plus, of course the added financial hardship of running multiple households on the same income). To a degree the same thing was true of the Murphy Brown nonsense, given that Murphy Brown's child was not going to face the hardships that disproportionately affect children of single parents. And of course it is true as well of gay couples whose children grow up in single households only because their parents are not allowed to marry.
Within that 70% are going to be a certain number of children who are special cases for various reasons and are not part of the worry. In fact the child of the union described above seems comparatively advantaged as far as these things go. But unless most of that 70% falls under the exception category in one way or another, stories like the one above, while interesting in their own right, don't really give that much information about the broader problem.
There's another reason to get married: religion. Neither you nor anyone commenting has mentioned that, which presumably reflects the secular mind-set. But it is an obstacle to communication with those who are religious.
Nothing personal dude, but if that's the case, that's your problem to deal with. I'm not going to alter my relationship just so it makes a religious person more comfortable with it, just as I wouldn't ask a religious person to alter his or her relationship to make me more comfortable.
if you never ever get married, t, you'll be fine and kenyatta will be fine and your kids will be fine, too.
and if you get married tomorrow, t, then you'll be fine and kenyatta will be fine and your kids will be fine, too.
i'm actually inclined to think that you'll like it even better after you get married. it'll be a huge party, and a lot of fun, and you'll be surprised at how moving it is and how choked up you get. and you'll wonder why you made such a big deal about dragging your feet before hand
but that's just guessing. what's clear is that you'll all be fine either way.
thanks for fighting for everyone's right to be fine either way.
This sounds like game. "My love for you is realler than marriage." And this way, when you step into the club, you don't have to worry about taking off your ring.
Maybe it's not, and really whether it is or not is between you and her. But maybe it is.
But the image of Barack will have some small but real effect on the willingness of young black men to play the role of family-man. Whether that role is played after saying vows like everyone else, or that role is played while rebelling against marriage like you.
We're not talking about doubling the marriage rate, but we're talking about some change at the margin.
Everybody wears black at funerals. You don't want to wear black. Why not? Why not do what everyone else does? There's no good reason to wear black? Wearing black won't bring the person back? Wearing black has not impact on how you feel? Just do what everybody else does and fight a real battle.
Your parents weren't married, and you think your father was a good father, and in some subconscious way you think you're giving him a tribute by not marrying and also doing him one better by only having children by one woman?
Or did your father do the married suckers who only have children by one woman one better and you don't want to be a sucker?
Be as honest with yourself as you can.
What a great post - thank you for sharing the personal detail; makes me appreciate your writing even more. Keep it up Coates; you rock.
Gully:
You'll like this. Lyrics sheet here.
TNC,
Scenario: During one of your periodic discussions about marriage, you find out that Kenyatta has changed her mind and decided that, for WHATEVER reason, being married is really, really important to her.
How does this affect YOUR view of marriage? At what point are you are willing forgo your own objections to marriage for the sake of the happiness of your loved one?
Just curious, but a serious inquiry nonetheless.
What a lovely, moving essay.
I marched last weekend with the pro-marriage equality folks in Los Angeles. At one point, a group near me started chanting, "What do want? To get married!"
I thought, "I'm not actually here because I want to get married (and it wouldn't matter if I did, because I'm straight and it's already legal for me.) I'm here because I believe in the right to decide whether or not you want to get married."
I don't know if I'll ever get married myself. But like you, I believe that it ought to be a personal choice. Only you and your significant other can decide whether or not it's the right one for you: not the state, not the church, and definitely not people commenting on your blog post!
It was a good post, but I think TNC is being a little cavalier about reason #3. It's not just estates and guardianship, but also social security, income taxes, health insturance, employee benefits, end of life decision-making and about a 1000 other or so laws where it matters if you're "married" or not. A lawyer can get you through some of it, but not all. Particularly as regards guardianship, in the state where I work, nothing agreed to between parties will outweigh the state's ability to do what's in the best interests of the child. This is not so much a problem with biological parents, in the case of TNC. But if one party is not a biological parent, and has not gotten around to (or allowed to) adopt, and not married, they got problems, if the other party splits up or dies.
And that doesn't even begin to get into the question of divorce, which is the state's way of protecting parties splitting up their family and assets from unfairness or bullying by one side or the other. (Divorce laws don't always work to accomplish this end, but that's the theory). Again, few states provide much protection to unmarried couples ending their relationships.
So for many same gender couples, not getting married is an actual burden, not just a matter of being denied a philosophical/cultural prefernce
Props to KevDog aka Baby Kobe, he had it right when he said:
------------
I would say that there is actually a reason #4, but that it wouldn't make sense to you.
#4) It's different than being single. That is about as close as I can explain it to you. It's a completely different mind set on the other side of the reception, my friend.
My wife and I lived together, planned together, bought a house together, before we were married. Intellectually, it was the same as being married.
Emotionally, it is completely different. The firm demarcation between yesterday we were single and today we are married is a bright line that no amount of discussion and planning can provide.
I can't tell you what that's like, but everyone who has been married can, even if they got a divorce later.
--------------
I hope your decision works out well, but I do worry it could have some consequences for your children that you don't realize. It's all too easy for us parents to forget what made us who we are and then discount certain things when it comes time to pass it on to our kids. I'm not saying your kids will be perfect if you're married and not perfect if your not. But, and not that you care, because the whole point of your post is clearly that you don't care what others think in this regard, still... but it my opinion, that marriage would actually help your relationship, and more importantly would help your children in their future relationships and even to their children's children.
I still stick to my original point that it's ironic that many of us, after being raised a certain way, and having that upbringing shape who we are do so much in our power to avoid having our kids experience those same things -- for good and bad.
And as far as comments about choice... of course its about choice. If you aren't getting married out of choice and 100% committment to the marriage and your spouse, what are you doing anyway. Church has nothing to do with it. The marriage is between you and the spouse and if you're a person of faith, God. The Church doesn't make you get married, it offers support and structure that can benefit your life, family, and marriage.
Alyson said, "My take on this is, if you can't trust a guy to stick around, you really shouldn't marry him, even if there's a kid on the way. "
Ok, and my take on this is if you can't trust a guy to signify he is committed to you and the relationship, you probably shouldn't be sleeping with him.
Now that's not the answer the enlightened world likes to hear, and we all obviously fail to live up to our highest expectations. But still, sex is something that is fun, rewarding, exciting, loving, and also filled with downsides like depression, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies if it is not in the proper relationship. There is something to be said, whether you agree or not with the morality of it, to making it a goal to have two people be fully committed to each other in marriage before not after having sex. Now I suppose I have to duck and run for cover after attempting to defend traditional values...
@Pesto:
Thank you so much for bringing Jonathan Richman into this discussion.
"if you can't trust a guy to signify he is committed to you and the relationship, you probably shouldn't be sleeping with him."
Don't feel the need to duck and run on my account. While I don't agree fully with what you've said, I do think we'd all be a lot better off if we all gave a little more thought to the fact that sex is consequential.
You where right, Pesto ... I did like it.
It's always good to hear something new.
Wonderful, honest post and again, great blog. It gets better and better.
As a married person, I don't really feel the need to "defend marriage" to TNC, because he clearly isn't against it as an institution, but rather just doesn't see it as an institution that will add anything to his relationship.
And I tend to agree with the reasons he set forth for not getting married. And I use to believe in those as well, in terms of my own relationship.
The same way my grandmother never felt she needed a priest to mediate her relationship with her god, I certainly don't feel I need a church, a state or any institution to mediate or rather co-sign my relationship with my wife.
So why did I ask her to marry me? Because I knew it would make her happy. And I knew it would make my family and her family happy. But mostly because it was going to make her happy. And it did. The fact that it made me really happy as well was a consequence I wasn't quite prepared for, but very pleased about.
Marriage never did change the way my wife and I feel about each other, or look at each other. Rather, it seems to have changed the way other people look at us. And I sort of like it.
But like TNC says, it's having the choice that matters. The idea that people voted in my state of CA to ban gay people from getting marriage makes me sick. But young people know what's right, and in time the bigoted majority will die off and gay people will get equal treatment under the law.
Fer chrissakes, after reading some of these criticisms, I'm going to call my husband and ask him if we can get divorced. We'll still live and raise our children together, of course, and nothing at all will change for either our kids or us with the exception of the civil benefits.
With regard to the more abstract "benefits" being touted by some folks, I think that they are promoting nothing but form over substance.
From John above:
"You may find, if the worst happens, that your "contracts" aren't terribly pertinent.
At least, that's been the experience of many gay couples with custody issues or inheritance issues who have copious paper to back up their relationship but not that ever important "certificate" to make it in the eyes of the gov'ment."
Totally agree. Have had friends affected by this. All the legal paperwork is in order and it means diddly squat. If you got run over by a truck today(heaven forbid) you might find that one of your siblings was determined to be the "closest relative" and thus able to make decisions and to hell with whatever Kenyatta wants. It's a horrible, horrible situation to be in. Maybe it can work so long as your relationships with your "immediate family" (in the legal sense) are good and they'll defer to Kenyatta's wishes, but otherwise....heartache all around.
I completely don't agree with this being the way it should be, but it is reality and can happen.
Otherwise, I support your choice, just as I support anyone's choice to get married and I am fully for the rights of gay people to marry. I think anyone who wants to should be able to. End of story.
And to echo those who said it's different when you get married. It is. It just is. I can't fully explain it. But somehow it's different. In a good way.
Ta,
I admit I always found it strange when you'd refer to Kenyatta as your "partner." It just seemed odd. But after reading this, it has a kind of purity that I never would've ascribed to it otherwise. Thanks for the peek into your world. And for encouraging such an array of comments. So many interesting takes to digest here. It's funny, we talk about marriage v. singledom as domains. You are or you're not. You're in or you're out. But no one really talks about actual relationships. I know many married folks. Are they happy? Are they partners? Do they even like each other? Who knows? But I'd be curious to read their essays.
It's "Kenyatta and I" chose not to marry.
It's posts like this that make blogs worth reading. Ta-Nehisi...you dug really deep for this one, even i can tell that. Our lives aren't similar at all, you're in the middle of yours, im just starting mine. But i could relate to almost everything you said. I wont pretend i know about the troubles of raising a child, or sticking to one woman for that matter either, but i will say that you present ideas that i've just started pondering. You raise intresting questions and challenge readers on issues far and wide. Thank u man!
I completely agree with you about point 1 - "getting married keeps him from leaving" - yeah, right. I'm in solid agreement with point 3, about legalities, and all those documents are valuable, but maybe not foolproof.
As for point 2, I agree insofar as it's what's going on in your heart, in your gut, and in your head that makes it work. Go to war for it. I like that phrase. Maybe we should swap "for better or for worse" with "I will go to war to keep you". But maybe folks wouldn't understand.
Point 2 was that marriage "declare[s] our commitment to each other before a community of people whom we loved." Umm, this is a pretty public blog, and you pretty much just lifted your dress for us.
I offer two data points.
My sister isn't married to her current, and has been in that state for over 10 years. She doesn't actually want the legal binding, since she thinks he isn't that good at handling money. But she adores him otherwise. I have now decided to refer to him as my "brother-in-law"; it's simpler that way, and reflects the emotional reality, if not the legal.
Some other friends decided to get married after maybe 15-20 years of cohabitation(no children, though). They said, at the reception, that they were surprised by how much it meant to them.
Well said. I wholeheartedly agree.
Beautiful post, TNC.
Thanks for letting us into your world as it provides much greater context and clarity for your non-personal writing.
This is why I read your blog. Keep up the fantastic work, buddy. And again, try the Balvenie Doublewood. Heh
It sounds like for you and Kenyatta, long discussions are something that works for you.
The only issue I take with anything you wrote here is that sounds like you think that anybody who finds a declaration made in public more convincing than a promise made in secret just doesn't have the kind of bond that you have. But not everyone is as verbal as your average aspiring poet. Not everyone is as good at expressing themselves with words, and not everyone places the same meaning and significance on words. For some people talk is just talk, but standing up in front of your whole community MEANS something.
I guess you've got to trust people to know their signficant others. Kenyatta obviously made the right call with you. But that doesn't mean that some other girl out there who is very bothered that her boyfriend will not make it official doesn't know something about the guy she's dating too.
I actually don't care whether or not people get married (and for the record I'm way in favor of gay marriage being legal), but it's interesting that you feel that both marriage and religion are basically private. I feel that in particular religion can be a very public act -- if I go to a protest against, say, torture, or in favor of taking better care of the earth, I'm doing that for profoundly religious reasons and in an ideal situation I would be acting with my (religious) community to effect the changes I want.
Similarly, getting married within a community seems to me like the whole point -- if there were no communities there would be no need for marriage.
"There's another reason to get married: religion. Neither you nor anyone commenting has mentioned that, which presumably reflects the secular mind-set. But it is an obstacle to communication with those who are religious."
Well, that's just silly. My S/O and I have been together for 14 years. We have a happy family with five kids. He's an extremely devout Catholic and I'm a run-of-the-mill pagan. We were going to get married originally, but his family wanted me to convert, and we felt that would have shown disrespect for his religion, as I don't believe in it. It became a big deal for them, so we said #&%* it, and went on with our lives. The important thing was our commitment to each other, which if anything is stronger today than it was when we first fell in love.
After a dicey 1.5 years with his family, the kids started showing up, and we let it be known that talk about our relationship was forbidden territory. We said it with a smile, and eventually everybody let it go. And I'm talking hardcore Catholics here. They were just worn down by our cheerful determination. No angry words from us, just "We're very happy, thank you." The kids are raised understanding that people all over the world have different beliefs, and that they can all get along if they try hard enough -- just look at mom and dad.
Every once in a while we think about getting married, but then decide, why screw up a good thing?
Thank you for posting it. I was very touched.
TNC --
I'm with Catherine, above. I have a very different reaction to rationale #2, but I suspect that has more to do with the differences in our cultural and family environments than in different ways of looking at the world. But if you want a beautiful explanation of the cultural significance of marriage, I would commend you to Wendell Berry's essay "Poetry and Marriage" in his collection of essays entitled "Standing by Words."
http://www.amazon.com/Standing-Words-Essays-Wendell-Berry/dp/1593760558
Thanks so much for this post. My man/boyfriend/partner/what have you and I have been together for 4 1/2 years and we know we aren't leaving each other. And while there is little pressure from our families/friends (thank all things holy!) to get married, there is still the question - Why not? & i hate the feeling of justification that comes with answering that question.
Jeff and I have had a lot of the same discussions about our relationship, so i want to thank you for bringing those discussions to light for people who ask, "why not?"
Oh, lovely writing, as always...
If you live together, share bills together, raise the child together, and have been doing so for more than a bit of time, then ya two are married. Legally -- most states recognize common law marriages after 7 years of co-habitation -- and in many other ways. In the chance that you and her ever break up, I guarantee the pain will feel very similar. (Unless you have mansions and yachts to fractionalize).
I think the big decision for you and Kenyatta was whether to raise your beautiful son in one household or two. In other aspects, your situation sounds like a married one. A good one at that!
It's not just estates and guardianship, but also social security, income taxes, health insturance, employee benefits, end of life decision-making and about a 1000 other or so laws where it matters if you're "married" or not. A lawyer can get you through some of it, but not all. Particularly as regards guardianship, in the state where I work, nothing agreed to between parties will outweigh the state's ability to do what's in the best interests of the child. This is not so much a problem with biological parents, in the case of TNC. But if one party is not a biological parent, and has not gotten around to (or allowed to) adopt, and not married, they got problems, if the other party splits up or dies.
And you know what? I'm lazy and cheap. All those legal contracts are costly and involve time; marriage just involves a trip to a JP or minister and the marriage license. I think people forget the utter convenience of marriage, and that's one of the reasons separate 'partnership' proposals never wash with me.
Having said that, thanks for the essay, T-N. I wonder what your kid will think of it years down the line....
If I were not married to my wife, we would have broken up in the first or second year of our marriage.
Since we were married, we fought through our troubles and we had our 10th Anniversary last month. I would say that every year since my 3rd year of marriage has, successively, been the best year of my life and all of it has to do with her.
But if we hadn't been married, we wouldn't be together.
Just yesterday I was talking to a friend and she was discussing her boyfriend of many years who refuses to get married, although he supposedly/avowedly wants to be with her for the rest of his life. I told her to GET OUT. I told her I thought that was BS and selfishness, with a little bit of manipulation thrown in for good measure. Sorry, I just do. In 99% of the cases, I think it signifies an unwillingness to commit and a desire to keep one's options open, dressed up in fancy philosophy.
Not saying that as any judgement on TNC's situation, which is his own business, just a general observation.
Jacy:
I wasn't clear. What I suggest is that TNC could have said something like this: "there are 4 reasons for Kenyatta and I to get married. (1) it's a religious sacrament. But neither of us is religious, so it's not a valid reason...."
That phrasing would have recognized that many people in the U.S. would consider that a valid reason to get married and thus acknowledged their presence in his community. As an old atheist, IMHO it's very easy for humans to make assumptions that exclude people from the human community.
TNC,
This post is proof that Kenyatta is right about you. Keep telling the truth.
But on the marriage question--you've laid out precisely why marriage isn't about or for the couple. Marriage is public. If the couple wants their relationship to be public in that way, they can make it public (and that can be privately valuable).
I definitely knew that going into my marriage: the ceremony isn't for us, it's for our families and friends. Not that we were pressured into it or it was a chore: getting married was a great excuse for a party. But it's primarily a showing you make for others. That doesn't harm the stuff that happens in private--doesn't even touch it.
Nicely put. No pressure to marry from me, although I have to tell you, I don't regret the choice I've made to bind to my life, in every way possible, the smartest, best looking girl I ever made a friend of.
Because when we first became bound to one another we couldn't legally marry, we had the ceremony and followed 8 years later with the one-page, portable document (not accepted in all states, etc). So I've married her twice, and the second time the vow was simple: I'd do it all again, knowing what I know now.
That said, the required counsel:
Whatever you've done, you're just off on reason #3. While you can pass, due to the mixed-sex nature of your non-marital partnership-- in most emergency settings, and therefore expect that your contracted kinship will be respected, once the emergency is over you have a good chance of something awkward happening and a narrow chance of disaster.
One example: Unless you are so wealthy that it's an insignificant amount, SSI survivors' benefits might be profoundly valuable to you in keeping your commitment to Kenyetta that you will care for your son as she would herself if she can't be there. The ticket to that ride, which is a damn rocky one that I wish on no one, probably costs $25 at your county clerk's office. Might be worth buying if your income has been disproportionately from the wages of one of you.
I know a straight couple that married at the courthouse, with his sister and her best friend as witnesses, who told no one else that after all those years they had decided to accept that one of them would eventually die. YMMV.
It's not just estates and guardianship, but also social security, income taxes, health insturance, employee benefits, end of life decision-making and about a 1000 other or so laws where it matters if you're "married" or not.
I agree with the point above. Marriages are imbued with the meaning that the 2 people bring to it. If you reject the religious or "deeper commitment" constructs that other people have attached to marriage, you can treat it as buying insurance or signing up for a benefit. Just as you don't call all your relatives when you buy life insurance or go to your atty's office to sign a legal document, you can go to City Hall and get the piece of paper and not make a public announcement about it. But at least both of you and the child(ren) would have the legal protections, rights, and benefits that that piece of paper confers.
Because YOU and KENYATTA decided to have a baby out of wedlock, it sounds like you were thinking of no one but yourselves...
The most important reason to get married now is for your son...One day he will wake up and ask, "Daddy, why arent you and Mommy married?"
Are you really going to give him a bunch of BS platitudes about "our relationship is our own - no one can make us do anything" blah blah blah
Start thinking about your son, not about making some grandiose political, societal statement about "the man" isnt going to make us get married...
Please Mr. Coates! If you are committed to doing right by your son, you should marry Kenyatta...
Fantastic post TNC. I ended up going the other way but I loved your thoughts on this.
Some of the judgments people are posting are kind of surprising, actually. I guess we've all got our controlling, fearful streak.
Gully: If we got married it would be for family and friends and because we would want to get together and have a big party.
Hear, hear. That's why we did it, and it was great. The symbolism was powerful - I surprised myself with how emotional I became - but mostly it was nice to be the center of attention and share a beautiful day with those we loved. If you've got reasonable expectations and like a big party, I recommend it for that.
Marriage isn’t for men, so if you rationalize it too much from your point of view then it will never make any sense. That’s why getting married is normally a mostly selfless act for a man. Most guys do not enjoy publically expressing their love for women; you’re not alone. Guys are more motivated to get married to make her happy, and parents happy then to do it for their personal happiness.
So, if you’re going to stick with what’s already working, then more power to you. However, be wary of the woman who puts up the front like marriage isn’t important to them, when in actuality it is; a little bit. I don’t know your significant other, but I do know that it can be sometimes difficult for a feminist to admit a desire for a traditional relationship. Sometimes they can’t even admit it to themselves. She might not want it as much as others, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t want it at all.
I feel you Ta-nehisi. Who am I to tell any couple what to do?
I will say this though - Nothing makes a kid walk through life with a harder bop than knowing that he or she is the product of stable family with parents that are a shining light of what is possible through love, faith and commitment - asterisk free.
So jump a broomstick, exchange rings, get tattoos - I don't give a f*ck. As important as it is to have your child call you mommy and daddy, it's also important that she hear you call each other husband and wife.
Isn't it quite sad that us heterosexuals get to debate the pros and cons of marriage, who it's for, the legalities of it, etc. and our gay friends simply want the *choice* to marry.
A little O/T but revolving around marriage, I just want to share info about "abstinence-only until marriage" youth programming, ones I hope President Obama axes immediately. They are proven to be ineffective, yet funding for these programs has reached 1 billion (yes Billion) dollars since implemented. Abstinence-only education must cover 8 points (A-H), and here are D and E:
D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
E) teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
-----
See everyone, we all should've been taught as teens that sex outside of marriage would make us crazy because that's really logical, right??? I hope "abstinence-only until marriage" programs become history with our new president.
Deleted. Lotta dumb shit in this thread. This takes the cake.
@Anonymous,
"If you decide to up and leave, she's going to be financially screwed"
I think TNC's lady is an adult who made an adult choice. Would it be better then, if he married her and then SHE left, so he'd be financially screwed. I know that treatment is acceptable in society, but really, that's not a reason to run and get married.
I thought we left "getting married/staying married for the children" back in the 90s. Get married so your kid doesn't get teased? Seriously? Kids are gonna get teased over SOMETHING, regardless. Remember, they grow up and leave.
Marriage isn't that sacred. If it is, why is it so easy to get out of one? Why can people get married as many times as they want if it's "sacred"? My dad is on marriage #4, my mom was married twice. Sorry. Not buying it. If all these sanctified folks out there "defending the family", "defending marriage" would spend a little more time defending it against the cheapening of it by straight people, maybe then I'd have a little more respect for it.
I'm straight, and in spite of how this sounds, I'm not bitter against marriage, or married people (cue laugh track...:) Seriously, I'm not. I disagree with all these platitudes heaped upon the institution when the real damage is coming from those inside. I also disagree that TNC's kid is gonna care in 20 years that his parents weren't married. He'll remember his family being together more than he'll worry about the jewelry or the contract.
Love you, TNC. Thanks for sharing your lovely essay.
I've been married legally for 6 years. Had a big church wedding (despite my atheism) to keep my parents happy. I've never had to produce my marriage certificate. In fact, I am not even sure if I have a copy. My husband and I both kept our maiden names. Our daughter (born nearly 2 years AFTER the wedding, thanks) has my last name because she and I are both female. We've lived in 2 states. We've filed joint taxes and bought a home together. My husband gets all of my health benefits from work. He can respond to queries from insurance and credit card companies. If I ended up in the hospital, all he'd have to do is say, "that's my wife", and, unless someone challenged him, we'd be good.
Gay couples cannot, by definition, get any of this benefit of the doubt. Which is just, well, stupid. My 4-year old is obsessed with weddings and brides. If that dream lives, and she grows up and falls in love with a woman OR a man, who is anyone to stop her from fulfilling her fantasy? And what kind of fool would I be to force her into an arrangement like that if she decides that marriage is just not her cup of tea.
The -won't someone think of the children!?!??!- nonsense has to stop. It's holding us all back. Kids need loving, committed caregivers. Ideally, those people are their parents. Why can't we sit back and let good parents just be good parents?
@Anonymous,
And one other thing....black people are this country's mine canaries. So whatever you see happening to black people.....wait about 15-20 years, and it's coming for you too. A "black thang"? Really? Not as much as you think....more like a preview of an "American thang" within a few years...
Anonymous, I saw those same shitty dads growing up. But they'd all been married to the moms. A wedding band does not a decent husband or father make.
TNC,
On a very basic level, everyone needs (or wants)recognition and acknowledgement. You are clearly a strong man who is taking care of business, but when times get hard in relationships, like 10-15 years down the road, they need as much glue as possible to keep them together.
Thanks for sharing a bit of your world!
If it's working for you, spiff. But let me put in a word for official, legal marriage, from a totally secular dude with no interest in the religious baggage of the term. (Or in kids, at least right now.)
1) People know what you mean when you say "wife." That word instantly communicates a ton of useful information about your status, your responsibilities, what kind of person you must be, your maturity (to some degree) and something of the fact that you're kind of a "two-for-one deal", for parties and stuff. Useful, as long as it applies to you.
2) It's kind of a "magic ring"; being able to throw the word "wife" or "husband" around without qualification opens a few doors and removes a few obstacles, especially for "off-label" use of things like credit cards, or signing things, or doing bank stuff, or whatever. Most people will consider you legally interchangable with your wife. Sometimes that's useful from a division of labor standpoint. It really doesn't have anything to do with the law, per se, it's really more about how people will bend the law in your favor, even when they really shouldn't - and even when a legal document of power of attorney wouldn't accomplish the same thing.
3) No matter how great your wife is, or how great she thinks you are, you'll eventually disappoint each other more than either one of you will be able to bear. (If that doesn't happen to you, you will have been very lucky, or will have died very young.) At a time like that, the legal framework of your marriage - the headache it takes to dissolve that union - may be all that stops one of you from walking out the door in a state of less than perfectly rational clarity.
Maybe having kids does the same thing. I don't know. I know that's how it worked for me, though, and I don't know if it would have been the same if we hadn't have been married.
There's much about marriage that is objectionable. But there's much about it that is useful, especially to straight people, and I imagine, especially to parents. And I don't think you can get the same thing from a legal document. And as easy as it is to get married I don't see why straight people who've already made that commitment wouldn't just run down and make it "official."
Or at least start using the terms "spouse" and "married." I mean I guess if you have the legal stuff already, why not?
Or, you know, not. Whatever's been working for you.
good post, Coates.
thanks for sharing.
glad to know you're smart enough to know what you have.
Great post, TNC. I was wondering if you were ever gonna address the topic.
I'm not totally on-board with you - I got engaged to my lady about a month ago - but I see where you're coming from. In the end, the crux of the matter is choice.
And thanks for not throwing too many big words at me that I can't understand. Otherwise, I would have taken it as disrespect.
"if our lives are the thing, if we live what we rep for, what is the point of symbolism?"
You're a poetry buff and don't get the point of symbolism, seriously? Of communicating to the community at large and to each other, of making a public, even political stand for something, of defining yourself before all others and the state as no longer simply an individual but indivisible from another?
I'm not trying to judge, and God knows I'm not trying to criticize, I am just surprised that you would take such a stand on behalf of privacy - not privacy as in the right to make a choice, but as in the desire to live your private life behind a shroud when there are others who love you, care about you, are inspired by you, or just want to know you. I'm just trying to piece it all together.
Emotionally, it is completely different. The firm demarcation between yesterday we were single and today we are married is a bright line that no amount of discussion and planning can provide.
I can't tell you what that's like, but everyone who has been married can, even if they got a divorce later.
Let me disagree. I was married, for six years, and had a stepchild and a full child while in that relationship. I've been in my current, non-married relationship for 8 years now, and I've been and continue to be closer to Amy than I ever was with my ex.
Here's what I'm really saying to you, and to everyone else who has dropped their two cents in on how marriage is necessarily superior--you don't know other people's relationships, so stop acting like you do. You only come off looking ignorant. What works for you doesn't work for everyone, and what makes you feel different won't make others feel that way.
Interesting. I see your point about the private nature of a committed relationship versus the public spectacle of a marriage, but you can get married without that public spectacle. Just you and your lady at the courthouse. I've been thinking of that myself recently. Yeah, no free Pottery Barn crap from your friends, but the idea of putting out a wish list for that crap always seemed slightly tacky to me (even though I've shelled out for that stuff for friends who have gotten married).
I completely and totally agree - and for many years also did not marry, using basically the same logic. Ultimately, however, I did become bothered by the fact that, as a lawyer, I became increasingly aware that as much as people say you can "contract" for all the same rights as in marriage, you really can't. You can make a will, a living will, a partnership agreement, etc. But, there are protections and stigmas built into the law you can't get around without marriage. As much as I think the State has no business determining this, it is one of the reasons I too support gay marriage. A few examples: you can have a power of attorney for health care, but unless you have it on you, it can be hard to get into the ER in a crisis situation unless you are a spouse. You can have a contract for your assets, but you can't for social security benefits - those only go to your spouse. There are also presumptions built into the law in all sorts of areas that favor spouses, and you can't take advantage of those without a marriage. (Usually presumptions come about when something is less than clear, giving the benefit of the doubt more or less in one direction. While we can rail against the system for being this way, it is what it is for now, and so in the end I decided to get married. In private. In our own way. And it was nice. I'm not at all sorry. Food for thought.
I would say that there is actually a reason #4, but that it wouldn't make sense to you.
#4) It's different than being single. That is about as close as I can explain it to you. It's a completely different mind set on the other side of the reception, my friend.
My wife and I lived together, planned together, bought a house together, before we were married. Intellectually, it was the same as being married.
Emotionally, it is completely different. The firm demarcation between yesterday we were single and today we are married is a bright line that no amount of discussion and planning can provide.
I can't tell you what that's like, but everyone who has been married can, even if they got a divorce later.
Posted by KevDog | November 18, 2008 2:15 PM
--
This comment? Totally on point. Same for the entry itself. I finally married my guy in August after seven years of what would be considered "living in sin." We did it on our OWN terms, when WE were ready, and I think it was the best decision I've ever made. Though nothing really changed besides my last name, the emotional impact was SERIOUS. It's beyond words, really.
That said? Marriage isn't for everyone, and the fact that black folks (and others) continue to push it as some panacea has always been problematic for me as well. And when we start looking beyond rings and shotgun weddings, perhaps we can finally focus on strengthening ourselves and recreating that sense of community that disappeared long ago.
TNC--I do not care if you are married. That's your biz. I wish you and those to whom you are close happiness and good health. I thank you for your interesting thoughts on this blog and the opportunity to talk with you.
i was divorced after 25 years together (not by choice; he ran off with someone he is now married to) but i would never, ever get married again. and i totally regret having gotten married before.
marriages end. divorce is horrible.
you can have a kid together without getting married.
being married DOESN'T mean the person won't cheat and leave.
to me, it means nothing but a tax break. and that needs to change.
maria,
Cars for me mean nothing but a quick way to get from A to B with the chance that you can randomly die or be maimed for life. We should just all be happy getting there a little slower. I was hit head on by a semi and my aunt was also hit, my brother also got Tboned by a truck, my sister did as well. As you can see the whole society arranged around cars need to change.
Not really...
As a black female, I am soooo glad my parents are married and have been for over 30 years. I am soooo glad that everyone in my household has the same last name. I am soooo glad my Dad is there for my Mom through good times and bad. Although, my life is not perfect I have a solid foundation. I feel loved and I am blessed.
I think it's important to discuss the ways that we access the 1000 federal benefits that are reserved for folks who are coupled by legal marriage (and a coupling that is assumed to be for sexual reasons--hence the incredible surveillance of sexual habits for American citizens who marry immigrants). We might all be better off if we were able to make decisions about our households without having to accept certain social, cultural, and legal limits that are not always in our own interests.
Some of what folks say are the benefits of marriage, legally, are in fact theoretical benefits, and do not always affect the pratices in similar ways. While marriage may offer some protections to children within that marriage, state-enforced sexism and racism may affect the ability to predict how those protections will be enacted in any given situation. Access--knowing people in powerful places like lawyers, community leaders, aldermen, etc, as well as having economic resources can do more to help navigate the legal ways of marriage than a simple piece of paper...
TNC and Kenyatta have made a decision, after balancing the different risks and benefits and it's clear that it works best for them. All of their individual as well as their shared life experiences have given then the tools to move forward confident in their ability to do right by each other, and to their son. Oh, that we all had such opportunities and ability. I commend them for working it out, and having faith. It is a tremendous leap of faith, made less by the obvious love and commitment they share.
And as I both support the choice NOT to marry as well as the choice TO marry, I wish there were better options for those of us who choose not to "partner" but still need access to social safety nets and choices provided by marriage. My friend's mother and brother lived together for 65 years, and adopted and raised a child, my friend. But when the brother died, his SSI benefits did not go to his sister nor to his niece; the inheritance taxes that the sister must now pay, which she would not have to pay if her brother had instead been a husband leaves this strong family in financial disarray.
Google Nancy Polikoff, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage for some very smart and provocative thinking on the assumptions we make about the institution of marriage.
Just to emphasize that BOTH gay and straight marriages have theoretical access to the benefits and privileges of marriage. Neither are guaranteed that these civil rights will be legally enforced--some more than others, ut not all.
moonmarked - just to clarify in your above response (the long one). Are you saying there is some kind of federal requirement/mandate that my wife and I have sex? Does it get into specifics about the regularity? Is it affected by Executive Orders? I hope this is one of those areas Obama can really make my life better from day 1!
Actually, I'm pretty satisfied, but who wouldn't want to be more so... :)
Moonmarked, as part of a broader point, I think you and others are completely confused. If you "choose" partner why not choose married.
It would seem to be all of this is motivated by some societal backlash against religion/cultural demands.
Can someone explain to me the difference between moving in together, saying your committed together, having a serious and intimate relationship together and formalizing (among other things) it by getting married?
Do people not just want to do it because it is (was?) 'expected'?
@ Sam,
People don't do it because its not important to them.
That is what it comes down to. What is important is love, respect and responsibility. You don't need marriage to have that.
Hi, Sam,
If an American citizen marries an immigrant, and that immigrant then applies for citizenship, one goes through a number of interviews before citizenship can be conferred. As recently as 2003 (when these issues were a part of my life) immigration, in order to ascertain whether this was a "real" marriage, would ask the couple as well as the friends of the couple about their sexual life. Over the years, many queer immigrant friends married straight friends so they could stay in the US with their queer partners; of course, we all had to have the same stories and I have fond memories of imagining the kind, the type, and the frequency of sex for queer folks who weren't sure what was reasonable for heteronormative folks. I dare say we sometimes went overboard, because the stranger the sex stories---told in sync with others--the more likely the INS would stop us from talking and the less likely to contest the "marriage".
To be clear, this is an issue for straight folks and their immigrant partners, and yes, depending on where you are immigrating from, the more likely the assumption that one is marrying for citizenship and access to those 1,000 federal benefits rather than romance and sexual fulfillment.
I know, most of the time we just assume that married people are doing so as sexual involved and invested beings, but even still, the idea that folks would be sexual and not be procreating (making babies) is still something that is culturally questioned. In other words, folks say they are getting married, and the question of babies is raised.
I can't answer your other question, sam, because I choose NOT to partner nor to marry.
Some choose not to marry because they would have to take on the legal debts of their potential partner, and whether for school loans or credit purposes it may be better to keep those issues separate.
Some choose not to marry but to be partners because there are cultural and social expectations that are better resolved extra-legally; having an "open" relationship is possible with committed partners, but is legally adultery and has an affect on one's legal access to parenting, for example. And I know that may not be a good example, but it is from real life.
Some folks choose not to marry, when they could, out of solidarity with our queer brethren, and fight for the benefits of legal marriage to be extend to all regardless of their partnership status. Access o universal health care, rather than on attachment to a wage earner can free up relationships to be about love and romance, blah blah blah rather than economic security. How many people stay in domestic situations because they would lose access to resources?
Legal marriage offers certain responsibilities and entitlements; not everyone is interested in the ones that the state says one must sign up for whe in addition to the diverse cultural, social and religious demands of marriage. Strangely, many folks are willing to live within the religious law of their faith rather than the legal laws of the state. But many of us work to work to change both to meet the needs of our contemporary world.
Back to #4 - the public commitment makes for a different relationship. It might be better, it might be worse, but it is different. And different in a specific way - marriage is a device that grows human beings. It is not the only one, and it is way far from 100% reliable, but it works much of the time, and maybe better than anything else.
The idea of no escape (at least without significant and public pain) changes the dynamic in important ways. I can't speak to your relationship with Kenyatta, but in general, love morphs over time into something very different from its beginnings. It is that process of morphing that creates (when it does work) wisdom, patience and love in the largest sense of the word, which is not romantic love at all, but rather a philosophy of life and living.
I'm not saying you won't get there, or aren't already there, but I am saying that marriage is a crucible in which you may grow closer to being the person you want to be.
Jake
It seems to me that people who keep getting hung up on the terminology of "marriage" and "spouse" and "wife" and saying it's just "easier" to get the certificate and move on are just being lazy.
Why should some people have to conform to your ways just to make YOU feel better? Just because YOU aren't comfortable with a committed relationship that doesn't include YOUR idea of marriage shouldn't influence ME to change MY life.
We teach kids to challenge stereotypes and to question others and make their own informed decisions - but when it comes to "marriage" it's all about the party line, to be "truly" committed you have to be "married (and heterosexual)." That's lazy and should be changed. And we should be teaching our kids to think about committment in better ways than by a marriage certificate.
Also, another thing, my "spousal equivalent" and I are screwed either way - our parents are unhappy that we aren't married, but if we went to the JP and had it done, they'd be unhappy because we didn't have a big wedding for THEM. But we know, we'd be MISERABLE at a wedding (and in fact have left as soon as possible from other family members' weddings because they were truly horrible events as the people in our families are atrocious). And we could do better things with the money. So we chose the lesser of the guilts - not getting married... at least this way, parents can "dream" that one day it will happen instead of us having to live our married lives ALWAYS being guilted about not having a wedding.
No one can presume another's thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, nor should they be allowed to legislate on that fact. Otherwise, "Barney" would have been legaly outlawed by many parents ages ago.
TNC,
I think what you do on a daily basis on this blog is very courageous and your blog is a sterling example for how blogs and the internet can be used to push conversations like these forward.
I don't want to be another person trying to offer you advice or criticism about your life and your choices, that's not what you are looking for and i'm sure. But I'd like to add these comments about your 2nd point.
A public marriage is a statement, but it is also a process. It's a process where two people become integrated into a community as a new family. In my Indian-American culture, marriage is simultaneously about two people, two families, and one community. There are struggles between these forces, for sure, during wedding planning and preparation but in the end the ceremony and celebration is important to us on multiple levels. 1) We have told each other and now we are telling others that we plan to live our lives together and become a separate family unit. 2) It allows the community to support us in this endeavor. Registering gifts may seem like a superficial and material thing but when taken in a context of taking two people who didn't have anything and giving them the tools to build a life together it becomes a more meaningful exercise. It is also emotional support. Marriages are about two people but, in our culture especially, these marriages survive and thrive when there is also external support and nuturing. 3) It's a time and place for you and your family to commemorate a special time in your life. Your family worked hard, and you've worked hard to get you to a certain place. This is a time to celebrate those achievements.
4) It's a damn good time. You put your best threads on, you put some good music on, family drinks a bit and you can all party until late in the evening.
This was my experience with my own marriage, and a lot of it comes from my culture. marriage is a big thing, an entrance ticket, a rite of passage, a sign that you are a fully integrated member of society. By saying this I don't mean to judge TNC's relationship at all. The social context of my relationship and TNC and Kenyatta's are completely different. They obviously are devoted to each other and to their son. Their arrangement is every bit as legitimate as my own and I think the important thing to take from this conversation is that there should be a way for society to recognize more than one type arrangement.
Deleted. And way, way over the line. Please feel free to disagree. But that was wrong.
Neither of these logical errors is *limited* to children, of course. But I think they're less likely to understand why TNC doesn't find points (1) and (2) convincing, and why his and Kenyatta's relationship is what it is, whether a ceremony is performed or not - at least, if you don't explain it to them.
But I think getting married just to avoid the myth that there's something wrong with non-marital long-term relationships would only serve to perpetuate that myth, not only among children, but among the next generation of adults that those children will grow up to become. Just consider all the damage done by parents shying away from educating their children about the fact that not all boys fall in love with girls, some of them fall in love with other boys.
I am very glad you don't. This came across my radar a couple days ago, so I thought I'd share.
Back in the day, down where I'm from (Alabama), you would have been considered the husband in a common-law marriage, which had legal standing in many states.
The talk about children being conservative reminds me of the day when, at four years old, I wept bitterly and loudly for what felt like hours after I discovered that my parents had the siding on the garage changed while I was at pre-school. I also recall being dead set against having a little brother, and I thought Gremlins lived under my bed. Clearly my parents should've stopped having children after I was born, left the damn garage alone and let the whole family sleep on mattresses directly on the ground so that monsters had no place to hide - doing otherwise was obviously massively unfair to me.
I'm genuine happy for those of you who have found joy and strength in the institution of marriage - I'm even genuinely happy for those of you who've simply found legal convenience and an excuse to have a party - but I don't understand those that think marriage is/should be the only way to go.
TNC, it seems to me that you've conflated two different things here. it's perfectly understandable why you and your partner decide(d) not to marry, but most of the unmarried black folks who produce the children that populate the striking 70% out-of-wedlock-birth statistic did not go through anything like the process you describe and are not living in stable, committed loving relationships and maintaining nurturing, child-centered homes. if they were, then the statistic itself would be meaningless. one could quite rightly say, "so what?"
the problem is that this lack of marriage correlates with poverty, instability, parental abandonment, and a dozen other indicators of bad outcomes for women, men and children of color.
i agree that throwing around "marriage as a solution" is a shallow and unworkable solution because marriage does not cause stability, in fact the causal arrow goes the other way: generally speaking, people who are inclined to get married are committed to attempting to create a stable, permanent familial environment. the success with which they are actually able to do that is far from universal, but it is still the case that, especially when you look at folks at the bottom of the economic ladder, married couples have better outcomes on almost every measurable indicator of (financial and emotional) stability and mobility.
as you say, 'why on earth would so many fathers walk away from their children?', is a deep and worthy question for the community to ask itself. and i would reject any coercive make-the-poor-blacks-marry policy, but i also think that there is something profoundly significant about re-emphasizing in habitual cultural ways the deep importance of partner support and parental involvement with children, and even though you and kenyatta make a reasoned case for yourselves, in most hoods, that means getting married.
now, will barrack have any effect on the overall stability of black families, particularly poor ones? who knows. but no matter what you say, the fact of our new first family does mean something to little black children growing up right now. maybe you and i are too old for the obamas to create a compelling mythos for us, but kids learn how to dream from the symbology of the commonplace -- rituals like graduation, marriage, etc. it's not the only place they learn from, but it's definitely there.
in this way, barrack is a magic negro. not because he'll make everything alright, or compel black folks to "behave" (*cringe*) but because he is already legend and the way we tell ourselves the story of his life will shape the american psyche, including the black american psyche, for many generations.
TNC -- I so relate to your reasons for not getting married. I've been with the same woman in unmarried bliss for 25 years -- friends for two years before that, and neither of us is going anywhere. For the folks who had their lives changed by the piece of paper, if that's what it took for you, good for you.
But I like that, these days, we could get married if we wanted to. Here on the west coast of Canada, gay marriage has been legal for ten years. Ten years! And even though my partner and I don't choose to go that route, slowly but surely, the legalization of gay marriage has made our relationship far more visible, normal and acceptable even in the small town where we live. I would never have predicted what a big effect is has had on day-to-day casual encounters with straight folks. But wow, it sure has.
So thank you for seeing that part too.
Very well said, TNC.
Just because YOU aren't comfortable with a committed relationship that doesn't include YOUR idea of marriage shouldn't influence ME to change MY life.
It shouldn't. It absolutely shouldn't.
I think there's a line being crossed here, by some - there's one side, where I think it's appropriate to say "whatever works for you, but here are some benefits of marriage that you may not have considered or may not have been aware of", and then the other side of that line where one says "you're a bad person, and a bad partner, because you haven't forced her into a marriage neither of you want."
Yeah, that's pretty much bullshit, I agree. For instance:
I pity Kenyatta
I pity you. I think people have the ability to determine for themselves what they want to do. Crazy, I know, but then I'm a liberal like that.
Interesting anecdote about the Obamas that they once related in an interview: when they were dating, Michelle, the child of a traditional married couple, really wanted to get married. Barack, the child of a broken home, did not. And they used to argue about it, with Barack making points about how marriage wouldn't change his commitment to her, it was a societal institution that was no longer relevant, etc.
One evening, they had gone out to dinner and were arguing about this again. Then their waiter brought dessert to them, and on Michelle's plate was a ring box. Inside was an engagement ring. Barack started laughing at her stunned silence. "I thought that would shut you up," he said.
Yeah, this certainly answers that question definitively. I dig the legal solution you two agreed on most of all. You two are a great couple and you three are a great family, bruh. Bless bless and more bless.
Deva summed it up nicely.
Intersting how commentary often spins off and out of control and can become so hateful and disrespectful.
Brother TNC, excellent post, as usual. The Atlantic should be proud to have you.
I have been with my wife/partner for eight years now. We have a 14 month old son. I'm black. She's white. He's a nice shade of caramel (Or butterscotch. Or maybe cafe au lait. Damn, I'm hungry.)
Anyway, we got married during our sixth year together. We've been through living together, me moving out of state for a year for work, and two major moves (including a cross-country move) before we got married. We were definitely committed to each other and have been through a lot together.
For us, coming from homes were our parents were married, it just seemed natural that that would be the next step. But there wasn't a timetable on it for us.
When people asked us why we decided to take the plunge when we did, our response was "For the tax benefits."
We're agnostic, so the whole idea of religion wasn't there. It was a legalistic way for us to affirm our commitment to each other. The love part was already in place. The ceremony/reception was just a party. It was fun, yes, but it really didn't change how we interacted with each other. There wasn't that seismic shift in our relationship.
When she announced to her students that she was engaged, several of them looked at her and asked "You mean, you aren't already married?" Because they had seen our interactions, and made an assumption based on how we treated each other and engaged each other. Hell, we called each other "husband" and "wife" for about two years before the ceremony that made it so.
But again, that is us. TNC and Ms. Kenyatta have made their choice to not do it. And I would probably hazard a guess that if someone watched them interact in public long enough, they might make the assumption that they were looking at a married couple.
Yes, marriage can be a wonderful thing. Yes, the wedding ceremony can be a fun time (albeit a stressful one). And it's a right that EVERYONE should be welcome to partake it - if that's what they desire.
KevDog, I have to disagree with you on this. When my now-ex and I got married, there was no "bright line" proclaiming that suddenly Everything Was Different. At least, not to us -- although from the way my parents acted, there certainly was for them, but that's not what you're saying.
Part of the reason for that is that we had already discussed the way relationship expectations sometimes change after marriage and gotten a lot of that stuff out into the open. That let us get the important bits incorporated into the relationship before we got married, and identified the trivial stuff as being trivial. I have to wonder if what you're talking about as a "bright-line" experience is a combination of cultural conditioning and the sudden impact of undiscussed expectations.
Or maybe I'm just atypical; it's always seemed to me that the marriage ceremony (mine or anyone else's) was somehow inadequate for a ritual that was supposed to Change Everything. I know I always used to leave friends' weddings with a vague sense of "Is that all there is?" There was less of that feeling with my own, because I was in a position to know just how much work went into coordinating the whole thing! But I don't think that's what you meant either.
However, none of this is really important when set against the fact that, by virtue of being heterosexual, I am granted a whole suite of special privileges that are not accessible to gay people. That's just plain wrong, and I will fight for equal treatment under the law for everyone, period.
Excellent piece. I've bookmarked it for future reference.
Although I've always taken it as a given that marriage is not for everyone, or even for every couple, it irks me that most of the arguments against marriage are basically accusing everyone who does choose to wed of collusion with the patriarchal, heterosexist enemy. It's refreshing to read one that isn't.
I am mildly horrified by all these people who are worrying that the kids might someday be confused for 4 minutes over all of this.
First, the kids of families like these are usually not that confused by it as they have grown up in these households where it is normal. Maybe your kid would be confused by it because you put such a premium on it.
My parents never married, and I didn't think it was a big deal because being in the home with them, I always knew what was going on between them. I remember being asked the "why aren't your parents married" question by a friend, and I think my answer was "because they're not."
If I ever did have a question like that for my family, they would talk to me like a person.
The people that are worried about the children seem to think kids can't understand any of this. I always wonder why they give kids so little credit.
Its also small thinking, because the question of "why aren't you married" won't ever go away as long as people keep give into the pressure just so their kid doesn't have a worry sometime. Or we could work on evolving.
TNC --
It takes some courage to present your personal living arrangements to the world, explain them in personal rather than abstract terms, and offer them as an opportunity for comment on a set of issues that is currently the subject of much debate.
While we have only your version of things, and not those of your partner or your child, to go on, it appears reasonable to assume that you are describing things accurately: that you and your partner are in a loving, mutually respectful, and committed long-term emotional relationship; and that you both love and have accepted informal personal responsibility for supporting and raising your child. Those are all good things, they convey a positive message about you and your partner, and I have no reason to doubt them.
It is also true that many marriages are flawed, that many married people do not treat their spouses or children with the degree of commitment and respect that their married status might imply, that marriage as an institution is imperfect, and that many people have criticized the institution of marriage as offering asymmetrical rights and benefits to spouses or as excluding various groups from participation.
Having said those things, and approaching the subject in general terms rather than in personal terms specific to you and your partner, there may be some aspects of this situation that you and others commenting previously have not considered fully. I offer what follows not as personal criticism directed toward you or any other individual, but rather as concepts that need to be considered and reflected upon if one is to evaluate fully the matters that are necessarily involved in discussing the meaning of marriage as an institution.
Marriage is both a formal legal action and a public declaration, directed at least as much toward strangers, casual acquaintances and social institutions (such as legal, financial, medical and educational systems) as it is towards relatives or close personal friends. Entering into a marriage, even doing so quietly and with minimal ceremony, causes certain consequences to occur, as well as communicating certain things to persons or institutions who may subsequently interact with the couple or the couple's children. So does a decision to refrain from marriage, although the consequences and messages stemming from such a decision differ.
There are genuine distinctions between emotional, legal and financial forms of commitment. Love and other related forms of voluntary emotional commitment are of vital importance, and are entitled to respect. They do not, however, obviate the need for, or render irrelevant, legal and financial forms of commitment that, even if entered into voluntarily, are no longer voluntary once one has completed a marriage ceremony considered valid under applicable law.
Marriage expresses a formal public commitment and a binding obligation not only to acknowledge, but to voluntarily incur future involuntary responsibility and accountability for, one's legal and economic as well as personal relationship with one's spouse and children. Refraining from marriage communicates equivocation about, or repudiation of, one's legal and economic responsibilities for one's partner and children. This is true regardless of whether one has emotionally entered into a warm, affectionate and supportive emotional relationship with one's partner and children, or is voluntarily providing economic as well as social support for them.
While the emotional relationship between a couple is and should remain their own private business, the legal and financial relationship between them as a couple, and between them and their children, has significant consequences for and is appropriately the business of society; and of the legal, financial, medical, educational, and other institutions which have been instituted to meet the needs of society as well as those of individuals.
Each member of a married couple commits not only to acknowledge, but to be legally and financially responsible for, the support and raising of their minor children. This commitment is legally and financially enforceable against them, on an involuntary basis, if they fail to live up to it.
Each member of a married couple undertakes to be legally and financially responsible for supporting each other, and for the binding financial commitments that either spouse enters into.
Each member of a married couple confers upon their spouse, through marriage, legal rights to make decisions about medical care if they are incapacitated, rights of survivorship to property in they event that they die, and various other rights that society has determined, through its institutions, necessary and appropriate to confer upon persons willing to undertake the binding legal and financial as well as emotional responsibilities of marriage.
Refraining from marriage communicates, to strangers and social institutions as well as to any relatives and friends, that regardless of what one may feel emotionally, and regardless of how one may currently act voluntarily, one is at best equivocal, and more likely evasive, about one's legal and financial responsibilities toward one's partner and children, and toward other members of society who may have to provide for the needs of or otherwise deal with one's partner and children.
That message may not be what one intentionally chooses or intends to communicate, or is even willing to communicate. It is nonetheless unavoidably part of what one does in fact communicate, to strangers and social institutions at least, by making an intentional decision to refrain from marriage.
One may not like that, agree with that, or be philosophically willing to accept the right of strangers or social institutions to draw such conclusions. It is nonetheless true that this is part of the message that one communicates, whether intentionally or not, through a volitional choice to refrain from marriage.
While one may argue against such an interpretation, it is difficult at best for one to offer a persuasive case that one is legally and financially, as well as emotionally, fully committed to one's spouse and children, if one has refrained from marriage, or rejects the necessity or validity of marriage as a legal and social institution.
You or others may differ, perhaps strongly, with these views, I respect your right to do so, and I would be interested in your further thoughts, but this is how I see the issues raised by your post.